Panasonic Lumix FP3 vs Pentax Optio WG-2 GPS: A Detailed Comparison for Enthusiasts and Pros

When you start looking beyond the latest flagship mirrorless or DSLR cameras, it’s clear that compact and specialized cameras still carve out a relevant niche. Two interesting contenders in the compact category are the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP3 (FP3) and the Pentax Optio WG-2 GPS (WG-2 GPS). While they hail from the early 2010s, their differing focuses - ultracompact portability vs. rugged waterproof design - are worth closely examining if you want a dependable camera for casual shooting, travel, or adventurous outings without breaking the bank.

Having extensively tested both cameras in diverse conditions over the years, here’s a comprehensive comparison that goes beyond specs, incorporating real-world handling, image quality insights, and suitability across photographic genres. While neither is perfect by today’s standards, understanding their relative strengths will help you decide if and how one fits your needs.

First Impressions: Size, Build, and Ergonomics

Before diving deep into imaging performance or feature lists, size and in-hand feel often dictate daily shooting comfort and usability.

The Panasonic FP3 is an exceptionally compact ultracompact camera, with slender dimensions (99x59x19mm) and feather-light weight (155g). It slips effortlessly into a pocket and feels unobtrusive - ideal for street photography, travel, and anytime you want to keep a low profile. Its fixed lens doesn’t bulge much, enhancing stealth.

In contrast, the Pentax WG-2 GPS is noticeably bigger (122x61x30mm) and heavier (198g), with ruggedized casing. It lacks the sleekness but offers robust grip and weather sealing that no ultracompact can match. If you shoot in wet or dusty environments, the WG-2’s build quality is reassuring. It’s shockproof, crushproof, dustproof, waterproof, and freezeproof - protection you pay for in extra bulk.

Controls are minimal and somewhat utilitarian on both, but the WG-2 feels more tool-like, whereas the FP3 leans toward casual ease. You’ll find the FP3 touchscreen a pleasant bonus for navigating menus and selecting focus, a feature missing on the WG-2.

The top-view comparison highlights this minimalist approach on both, but the WG-2 packs a few more function buttons, indicative of its slightly more serious photographic intent.

Sensor and Lens: Technical Heart and Image Quality

Image quality is always paramount, so breaking down sensor and lens performance brings clarity.

Both cameras share the 1/2.3” sensor size, fairly typical for compacts but obviously limited compared to larger APS-C or full-frame cameras. However, the FP3 employs an older CCD sensor (14MP), while the WG-2 uses a newer BSI-CMOS sensor (16MP). The difference is more than just resolution; the CMOS sensor generally offers better low-light responsiveness and dynamic range.

In practice, the WG-2’s sensor delivers crisper images with slightly better color depth and notably improved noise control at higher ISOs compared to the FP3. Panasonic’s Venus Engine IV processor held up well for 2010 standards, but the FP3 struggles from ISO 400 upwards with evident noise and softer edges.

Lens-wise, both have zoom ranges geared toward versatile use: FP3 with a 35-140mm equivalent focal length and WG-2 at 28-140mm. The WG-2’s slightly wider end benefits landscapes and street shots. Maximum apertures are comparable (F3.5-5.5/5.9), which means low-light capability depends more on sensor and stabilization.

The FP3 incorporates optical image stabilization, helpful handheld, but given its sensor noise issues, it doesn't fully compensate for dimmer conditions. The WG-2 lacks built-in stabilization, relying more on fast shutter speeds enabled by its sensor.

Live View, LCD Screens, and Viewfinders

Shooting and composing a scene live requires a decent display. Neither camera offers an electronic viewfinder - a downside for bright daylight shooting.

The WG-2’s 3" LCD screen shines over the FP3’s, featuring 460k-dot resolution and anti-reflective coating that dramatically improves visibility outdoors. The FP3’s 3” 230k-dot touchscreen is fine indoors but struggles in sunlit environments. Although FP3's touchscreen adds convenience, it often feels slower than physical buttons in active shooting.

No viewfinder means you must rely on screen framing exclusively - not ideal for fast action or very bright conditions for either, but WG-2’s better screen alleviates this.

Autofocus Performance and Usability

Autofocus (AF) accuracy and speed significantly influence success in wildlife, sports, or candid photography.

The FP3 has 9 contrast-detection focus points, responds through touch AF but no face or eye detection. AF speed is moderate - fine for static subjects but hesitant tracking moving subjects.

The WG-2 also offers 9 contrast-detection points but improves with face-detection capability and notably provides AF tracking. While still no phase detection or advanced eye autofocus, the WG-2 fares better capturing unpredictable scenes - at least in daylight. However, its single shot burst rate of 1fps is not designed for fast sports or wildlife action.

Neither supports manual focus beyond macro mode on the WG-2, but WG-2 allows manual focus adjustment, useful for macro shooters who want precise control.

Photo Genres: Which Camera Excels Where?

Understanding how each camera performs across photographic styles helps in choosing the better fit for you.

Portrait Photography

With no face or eye detection, the Panasonic FP3’s portrait capabilities are basic. Its CCD sensor and lens produce decent skin tone naturalness under good light but can look flat or noisy indoors. Lack of shallow depth of field (max aperture of f/3.5-5.9, smaller sensor) restricts bokeh potential.

The WG-2’s face detection helps focus better on subjects, lending cleaner portraits. Its slightly wider lens at the short end is better framed for groups or environmental portraits. While bokeh remains minimal - both cameras are limited here - the WG-2’s superior sensor handles skin tones more appealingly.

Landscape Photography

Landscape shooters demand resolution, dynamic range, and sometimes weather resistance. Neither camera is a resolution champ by modern standards, but:

• FP3’s CCD sensor captures decent color fidelity but limited dynamic range often results in clipped highlights or shadows.

• WG-2’s CMOS sensor and anti-reflective LCD make composing landscapes easier, and weather sealing is a standout if you shoot outdoors in adverse conditions.

Both cameras allow aspect ratios up to 16:9, which helps for panoramic framing.

Wildlife Photography

Wildlife photography thrives on fast autofocus, high burst rates, and telephoto reach.

Unfortunately, both cameras offer limited burst rates: FP3 at 5fps but without continuous AF (makes tracking tricky); WG-2 only at 1fps.

The WG-2’s AF tracking is better for moving animals, but the fixed lenses’ moderate telephoto reach and aperture limit long-distance or low-light wildlife shots.

Sports Photography

Neither camera is designed for sports photography.

The FP3’s 5fps continuous shooting falters without continuous AF tracking, and the WG-2’s single fps speed isn’t viable for fast action.

Low light performance, again, favors WG-2 but overall, sports shooters should look elsewhere.

Street Photography

The FP3’s pocket-sized form factor and silent shutter (albeit limited) make it highly discreet in street scenarios. Touchscreen AF target selection is handy to nail spontaneous moments.

The WG-2 is bulkier and less stealthy, but its ruggedness is appealing if you roam rough urban environments or unpredictable weather.

Macro Photography

Here the WG-2 shines with an impressive macro focus range down to 1cm, allowing incredible close-ups. The FP3 can focus to 10cm - typical but less impressive.

Manual focus support on the WG-2 is a plus for delicate macro focusing. The lack of in-body stabilization could challenge handheld macro, but the WG-2’s ruggedness helps in natural settings.

Night and Astrophotography

Compact cameras with small sensors usually don’t excel at night/astro photography, but between the two:

The WG-2’s BSI-CMOS sensor and higher max shutter speed (up to 1/4000s) help capture sharper night and twilight images with reduced noise vs. FP3’s earlier CCD sensor and top shutter speed at 1/1600s.

Neither camera supports in-camera intervalometer or bulb mode for star trails, but WG-2’s timelapse recording offers some flexibility.

Video Capabilities: What to Expect?

Video specs have increasingly influenced camera choice over the last decade.

FP3 shoots max 720p at 30fps, encoded in Motion JPEG - an older format, bloated and less efficient. There’s no microphone input, limiting audio quality.

WG-2 hits full HD 1080p at 30fps and 720p at 60fps with H.264 compression - a big step up. HDMI output exists, though no mic or headphone jacks.

Neither offers 4K, external mics, or advanced video features, but WG-2 is clearly better for casual high-definition video capture.

Battery Life, Storage, and Connectivity

WG-2 boasts a rated 260 shots per charge using its proprietary D-LI92 battery, which is respectable. FP3’s battery details are scant but typically fewer shots per charge due to its smaller form.

Both use SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, standard in compact cameras.

Connectivity-wise, FP3 lacks wireless functions; WG-2 includes Eye-Fi card compatibility and built-in GPS - a bonus for travelers wanting geotagging without extra hardware.

Environmental Resistance and Durability

The biggest difference is WG-2’s extensive environmental sealing:

• Waterproof up to 12m
• Freezeproof to -10°C
• Dustproof and shockproof (1.5m drops, crushproof to 100kg)

The FP3 has no such ratings, designed more for casual indoor/outdoor use under careful conditions.

If you’re the adventurous type, WG-2’s durability is an invaluable feature.

Cost and Value: Which Offers More Bang for Buck?

At time of writing:

• Panasonic FP3 ~ $180
• Pentax WG-2 GPS ~ $300

The WG-2 commands a premium reflecting its rugged design, higher resolution sensor, GPS, and superior video and macro capabilities.

For casual users who prioritize size and simplicity at a lower price, FP3 is appealing.

If your shooting demands durability, better image quality, and versatility for both photo and video, WG-2 justifies the higher investment.

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses

Performance Ratings at a Glance

Here is a glance at overall performance based on years of testing (scoring considers image quality, features, usability, and value):

…and genre-specific strengths:

Real-World Sample Images

To really see how these cameras perform, I captured the same scenes on both - note the WG-2’s more vibrant colors and sharper detail particularly in tricky light.

Panasonic FP3 front Panasonic FP3 screen back Pentax WG 2 GPS front Pentax WG 2 GPS screen back

Final Recommendation: Who Should Choose Which Camera?

• Choose the Panasonic FP3 if:
  You want an extremely compact, travel-friendly camera for casual street, travel, and snapshots without fuss. If portability is king and you primarily shoot in good lighting - this camera remains a lightweight companion.

• Choose the Pentax WG-2 GPS if:
  Your photography adventures are tougher - be it hiking, beach days, or rainy city strolls - and you need a rugged, versatile camera with better image quality, video, and macro features. Its GPS and weather sealing are valuable for outdoor photographers who demand durability.

Closing Thoughts From Years of Use

Having spent weeks shooting with both, I can attest that despite their age and humble specs, they each fill different niches well. The FP3 is a reminder that sometimes simplicity and size trump bells and whistles. The WG-2 GPS remains a surprisingly capable rugged camera with a sensor and feature set that competes well in the compact rugged category even years after release.

If you want my detailed walkthroughs on their controls, menus, and creative modes, I recommend watching my video reviews linked below. For those weighing used or budget options, you might find either to be a reliable entry point before stepping up.

Dear future compact camera designers: please reintroduce durable, weatherproof bodies paired with modern sensors and better video. We’d all be grateful.

This comparison aims to demystify common claims and put you in the driver’s seat for choosing between these two cameras. Whether ultracompact convenience or rugged versatility is your priority, now you have the insights for an informed decision. Happy shooting!