Olympus XZ-2 iHS vs. Sony Cyber-shot H400: The Real-World Camera Showdown for Enthusiasts and Pros

Choosing a camera is always a layered decision. I’ve spent years testing hundreds of cameras in all conditions - from tightly lit studios to vast, unpredictable wilderness. When a photographer asks me to compare two very different machines like the Olympus XZ-2 iHS and the Sony Cyber-shot H400, I dig deep into what each offers practically, technically, and creatively. These two cameras come from different design philosophies and eras, yet both target users craving everything-in-one convenience bundled with some serious photographic flexibility.

In this detailed comparison, I’ll walk you through their technical specs, real-world performance, and best-use scenarios to help you decide which option suits your photographic goals - from street to wildlife, portraits to travel. Buckle up: it’s going to be a granular ride.

First Impressions: Compact Versus Bridge-Style

When I first picked up these cameras, the physical contrast was immediately evident.

The Olympus XZ-2 iHS is a quintessential compact: pocketable, sleek, and crafted with an emphasis on ergonomics and tactile controls. Its compact body (113x65x48mm) weighing just 346g feels purposeful in hand, easy to carry on long shoots without exhaustion. The tilting touchscreen adds selfie and creative angle flexibility, which I often find is underappreciated in this class.

Conversely, the Sony H400 looks and feels like a mini-DSLR - often called a "bridge" camera - and it's considerably larger and heavier at roughly 130x95x122mm and 628g. The pronounced grip and SLR-like body design signal an intent to appeal to users who want telephoto reach without the hassle of changing lenses. However, this comes at a cost of bulk and portability, factors I flag for those who prioritize travel or street photography.

Ergonomically, the Olympus’s compact approach is more inviting for everyday carry. Still, the Sony’s heft does suggest more stability in long telephoto handheld shots, but this needs balancing against user fatigue over time.

Control and User Interface: Hands-On Handling

I appreciate the tactile, manual control dials on the XZ-2 iHS. Olympus’s layout puts the shutter speed, aperture rings, and exposure compensation right under your fingertips, which I found indispensable for on-the-fly exposure tweaks during fast-changing lighting conditions. However, the electronic viewfinder option is notably absent here, which lacks an optical or built-in EVF - a small tradeoff for those used to eye-level composition.

Sony’s H400 includes an electronic viewfinder, which works well given its bridge camera heritage and bulky body. The electronic viewfinder had a modest 201k-dot resolution; not impressive by modern standards but useful under bright outdoor light where LCD use becomes challenging. Still, the lack of touchscreen on the H400 made me feel a little distanced from quick menu navigations, especially compared to Olympus’s intuitive touchscreen panel.

Sensor Technology & Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Diving deep into sensor tech, the Olympus uses a 1/1.7" CMOS sensor with 12 megapixels, while the Sony houses a smaller 1/2.3" CCD sensor boasting 20 megapixels. At first glance, the higher pixel count on the Sony seems advantageous, but that’s deceptive given the sensor size. Smaller sensors with more pixels tend to have smaller photosites, which usually translate to more noise and lower dynamic range.

Measured by DxOMark, the Olympus scored an overall 49 - an impressive mark in its category - with color depth of 20.4 bits and dynamic range of 11.3 EV stops. This gives it a notable advantage in capturing subtle tonal gradients and preserving highlight/shadow detail in bright sunlight or challenging scenes.

Sadly, the H400 hasn’t been officially tested at DxOMark, but from practical experience and CCD characteristics, I noticed it produces images with reasonable resolution but struggles in low-light and high-contrast situations. ISO sensitivity maxes out at 3200 but image quality visibly deteriorates much earlier.

If you’re serious about nuanced image quality and want richer color fidelity and more professional-grade RAW files (supported only by Olympus), you’ll lean toward the XZ-2 iHS. The Sony, however, offers bigger images by pixel count but with compromised noise performance.

LCD Screen and Viewfinding

The Olympus’s 3” tilting touchscreen offers 920K dots - rich and vibrant enough for critical focus checking outdoors. The tilt mechanism is a boon for low or high angle shooting, which I exploited frequently for creative angles on portraits and street scenes.

Sony’s 3” fixed LCD has lower resolution (460K dots), which felt a bit grainy under midday sun. However, the inclusion of an electronic viewfinder (EVF) helped in bright conditions, although its 201-dot resolution is quite modest. I wouldn’t recommend this EVF for critical manual focusing, but it suffices for framing distant wildlife or sports subjects.

Autofocus and Real-World Responsiveness

The Olympus XZ-2 iHS uses contrast-detection autofocus with 35 focus points, including face detection, and supports tracking AF. Although not blazing fast compared to modern mirrorless systems, its AF allowed precise control, especially when tackling portraits where accurate eye detection matters. I found it adequate in well-lit environments but less snappy in dim light or fast action.

Sony’s H400 autofocus also relies on contrast detection but adds selective and multi-area AF modes, giving some flexibility across different scenes. Tracking AF seemed optimized for static subjects, but with only 1 fps continuous shooting, it’s not built for high-speed action.

Zoom Range and Optical Design: A Tale of Two Approaches

Sony’s standout feature is its extraordinary 63.3x optical zoom, ranging from 25mm wide to an astonishing 1550mm equivalent focal length - a true superzoom monster. This kind of reach opens doors for wildlife and bird photographers on a tight budget who don’t want to invest in heavy telephoto lenses.

In contrast, the Olympus’s zoom (28-112mm equivalent) spans only 4x but offers substantially brighter lenses (f/1.8-2.5), making it more adept in low light and for shallow depth of field effects.

The Sony’s smaller aperture range (f/3.4-6.5) limits low-light usability and creative bokeh. In my tests, even at 25mm, backgrounds stayed relatively in focus unless you shot very close. The Olympus’s wider apertures allowed me to isolate subjects with beautiful creamy backgrounds even in difficult lighting conditions.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones and Bokeh Mastery

For portraits, I instinctively reached for the Olympus.

The combination of its fast lens, 12MP sensor, and contrast-detection AF with face detection allowed me to capture natural skin tones and softer background blur. While not a full-frame sensor, the ability to shoot wide open at f/1.8 gave me enough subject isolation to create pleasing portraits that felt professional rather than snapshot-like.

The Sony’s smaller sensor and slower lens created images with more depth-of-field, which made it harder to separate the subject from backgrounds - especially at longer focal lengths. Yet, if your subject is always at a distance (say, for environmental portraits with a lot of context), the H400 handles that reasonably well.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Details

The Olympus XZ-2 iHS truly excelled here. With an 11.3 EV dynamic range, I captured scenes with bright skies and shaded fore-grounds without losing details - a big plus for landscape photographers. The tilting screen helped with low-angle rock and flower compositions.

By contrast, the Sony H400’s coverage at landscapes is encumbered by the smaller sensor with less dynamic range and noisier shadows due to its CCD. Images can appear less crisp and flattened in tonal transitions. The 20MP resolution does provide slightly more detail theoretically but often gets lost in noise and compression artifacts.

Neither camera boasts weather sealing or robust environmental resistance, so take care when shooting outdoors in adverse conditions.

Wildlife and Sports: Tracking and Burst Performance

Here’s where the Sony shines thanks to its impressive telephoto reach.

While the Olympus flirts with longtime prime photography or casual telephoto, the H400’s 1550mm reach is a game-changer if you’re shooting distant animals or sports events from a fixed vantage point. However, the Sony’s continuous shooting rate of just 1 fps is restrictive for fast action. Its modest autofocus speed means tracking moving subjects is often hit-or-miss.

The Olympus lacks continuous burst and fast AF for true sports photography. It’s better suited to static or slower subjects in this regard.

Street Photography: Discretion and Portability Factor

I gravitated toward the Olympus again.

Its compact size, quieter operation, and tilt screen made it ideal for candid shots in public spaces. The bright f/1.8 lens and RAW capture allow creative expression in various street lighting conditions - from neon-lit alleys to sun-drenched plazas.

The Sony's bulk makes it a conspicuous presence, which might draw unwanted attention or inhibit quick candid shots. The fixed LCD and slower AF impede spontaneity typical in street shooting.

Macro Capabilities: Get Close With Confidence

Olympus delivers a very close macro focus range at just 1cm, a fantastic feature for close-up photography of flowers, insects, or textures. The bright aperture aids depth of field control, and sensor-shift stabilization helped keep shots tack sharp during handheld macro sessions.

The Sony H400’s macro capability is more limited and unspecified, making Olympus the clear choice for enthusiasts keen on exploring the minutiae of the natural world.

Night and Astro Photography: Handling Low Light and Exposure Control

Olympus’s sensor and brighter lenses give it a solid edge for night photography, supported by ISO up to 12800 and tweakable manual exposure modes. While noise appears beyond ISO 800-1600, I found post-processing in RAW manageable. The sensor-shift stabilization also lets you hand-hold longer exposures without blur in some cases.

Sony’s maximum ISO 3200 and slower lenses make night shooting challenging - I recommend a tripod and patience if pursuing astro or long exposures on the H400.

Video Quality: Moving Images Overview

Both cameras record HD video, but with important caveats.

Olympus manages full HD at 30 fps with H.264 encoding and includes a microphone port, a boon for improving audio input quality with external mics. Its sensor-shift stabilization helps smooth handheld footage.

Sony confines video to 720p HD at 30 fps - somewhat dated by today’s standards - and also offers a mic input but lacks advanced stabilization. If video capabilities are a priority, the Olympus is the clear winner.

Travel Photography: Versatility and Power on the Go

For travel, I weigh size, battery life, versatility, and durability.

While the Sony’s mega zoom casts an attractive option for travelers who want to cover wide to wildlife in a single camera, its bulk and moderate battery life (300 shots) mean it’s a heavier, more demanding companion.

The Olympus’s smaller size, intuitive interface, and better battery life (340 shots) made it my preferred travel companion. The lens’s wider aperture helped me shoot in museums, dim cafes, or twilight street scenes without lugging extra gear.

Pro-Level Features and Workflow Integration

The Olympus edges ahead for professional use with RAW support and customizable white balance - essential for serious workflow flexibility. Its USB 2.0 and HDMI ports facilitate tethered shooting and direct HDMI output.

The Sony lacks RAW capability, limiting post-processing latitude and thus its appeal for professionals needing maximum image control.

Build Quality and Durability

Both cameras lack weather sealing or ruggedness features, so neither is ideal for harsh conditions or professional outdoor excursion without added protective measures.

Connectivity: Wireless and Extras

Olympus benefits from Eye-Fi card compatibility for easy wireless transfer, a feature missing on the Sony. Both cameras offer HDMI and USB 2.0, but Olympus includes a microphone port, adding to its video credentials.

Battery Life and Storage Flexibility

Battery life is roughly comparable, with Olympus slightly ahead at 340 shots versus Sony’s 300.

Sony supports multiple card formats including SD and proprietary Memory Stick Duo variants, which could add convenience if you already have compatible cards.

Price and Value: Getting More for Your Money

Retail pricing places the Olympus XZ-2 iHS around $450, whereas the Sony H400 is more wallet-friendly near $268.

With that price difference, the Sony is an attractive option for budget shooters wanting extraordinary zoom without fussing with lenses. For $200 more, Olympus offers a far more balanced system delivering superior image quality, manual control, and video features.

How They Stack Up Overall

This overall performance score highlights how Olympus’s technology and image quality deliver a more refined photographic experience, albeit with shorter zoom reach.

Strengths by Photography Genre

• Portraits: Olympus’s brighter lens and controlled depth of field put it clearly ahead.
• Landscapes: Olympus’s dynamic range and sensor size win again.
• Wildlife: Sony’s massive zoom is unbeatable for distant subjects.
• Sports: Neither ideal; Olympus for slightly better AF, Sony for longer reach but poor burst rate.
• Street: Olympus’s compactness and fast lens make it better suited.
• Macro: Olympus’s close focus distance and stabilization dominant.
• Night: Olympus’s ISO range and stabilization prevail.
• Video: Olympus wins on resolution and audio input.
• Travel: Choice depends on priorities - Olympus for compact and quality; Sony for zoom versatility.
• Professional: Olympus supports RAW and manual controls, fits better into pro workflows.

Real-World Image Samples

Olympus XZ 2 iHS front Olympus XZ 2 iHS screen back Sony H400 front Sony H400 screen back

By comparing side-by-side images, you’ll notice Olympus delivers cleaner images with richer tonality, while Sony’s images from extreme zoom lengths tend to be more prone to blur or noise, reinforcing their respective strengths and weaknesses.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

After extensive hands-on testing in diverse conditions, here’s how I’d advise choosing between these two:

• Choose the Olympus XZ-2 iHS if:
  You value image quality, manual controls, RAW shooting, better low-light capability, and a compact body that’s a joy to carry everywhere. Perfect for portraitists, travel photographers, macro enthusiasts, and those wanting solid video functionality. It’s a more versatile creative tool for the photography enthusiast who prioritizes quality over extreme zoom reach.

• Choose the Sony Cyber-shot H400 if:
  You want a budget-friendly, all-in-one zoom monster for wildlife or long distance shooting, aren’t concerned with RAW files or cutting-edge autofocus speed, and don’t mind the bulkier, heavier body. It’s a decent backup or starter superzoom, especially for casual photographers focused on zoom flexibility.

Photography is ultimately about moments, not megaflops. Both the Olympus XZ-2 iHS and Sony H400 have a place in the ecosystem, but your priorities for control, portability, and image quality will steer the decision.

If you want my personal recommendation based on years testing cameras in all environments, I’d pick the Olympus XZ-2 iHS for most enthusiasts. Its combination of control, image fidelity, and compactness outperforms in more photography styles even fourteen years after launch - a testament to Olympus’s engineering prowess.

I hope this deep dive clarifies their unique traits and helps you find the camera that lights up your photography journey! Feel free to reach out with questions about use cases or shooting tips - I always enjoy unpacking these gear details to support your creative endeavors.