Casio EX-S12 vs Sony DSC-W320: A Detailed Comparison for Your Compact Camera Choice

Choosing between two compact cameras that come from different years and slightly different design philosophies can be tricky, especially when you're in search of a secondary shooter or an ultra-portable daily snapper. I've spent years testing hundreds of compact cameras, and today I dive into the 2009 Casio EX-S12 and the 2010 Sony DSC-W320 to help you decide which one fits your photographic style and needs best. From sensor technology and image performance to ergonomics and user experience, I’ll break down the practical details you care about.

Let’s get started by sizing up the two contenders.

Hands in Hand: How These Cameras Feel in Your Grip

When you pick up a compact, size and ergonomics are king because these cameras live in your pocket or bag all day. The Casio EX-S12 measures 95 x 60 x 23 mm and weighs a feathery 111 grams, while the Sony W320 is slightly more diminutive at 93 x 52 x 17 mm and 117 grams. The Sony’s got a bit more sleekness, shaving off bulk especially in thickness.

That said, the sharp edges of the Casio and its slightly thicker diamond-profile might feel a bit tippy when shooting single-handedly. Sony’s compact body, although just a touch heavier, nests into your palm more naturally, making it marginally more comfortable for extended street shoots.

Both cameras sport fixed lenses and small 2.7-inch LCD screens, but beyond the numbers, I found Sony’s button placement to be more intuitive on the fly - more on the controls shortly. If you want a truly pocketable camera for quick shots, Sony’s compactness nudges ahead just a bit.

Controls Up Close: Seeing What’s Under Your Fingers

Physical ergonomics set the stage, but usability during shooting depends on button placement, dials, and menu navigation. Both models boast basic control layouts reflecting their entry-level compact status, but nuances matter.

Peering at the top views, the Casio EX-S12 keeps things simple with a minimalistic shutter button and zoom rocker, aligned centrally. Its menus offer a custom white balance option, though exposure compensation and manual modes are absent. In my hands-on tests, I noticed a bit of lag when toggling settings, likely a processor limitation.

Sony’s W320 introduces a dedicated flash mode button and a more responsive zoom toggle, plus a classic on/off switch that integrates well into natural finger movements. It lacks manual exposure control too, but the autofocus placement is more tactically positioned to accommodate quick changes.

Neither camera offers touchscreens or electronic viewfinders, so framing relies heavily on their LCDs. This simplicity keeps things approachable but may frustrate those who want faster access to creative controls.

Sensor Technology: Peering into the Heart of Image Quality

Both cameras rely on a 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm (sensor area of roughly 28 mm²), a standard size for compacts in this class. Yet, there are key distinctions in resolution and sensitivity that factor heavily into image quality.

The Casio EX-S12 offers 12 megapixels, maxing out at 4000 x 3000 pixels, while the Sony W320 saddles you with 14 megapixels - 4320 x 3240 pixels. The difference might sound enticing until you see it in real-world shots. Higher megapixels on compact sensors can sometimes lead to more pronounced noise and lower dynamic range. In my testing, Sony images showed a bit more noise beyond ISO 400, while Casio’s shots stayed relatively cleaner, albeit with less detail extraction in shadows.

Neither camera supports RAW capture, restricting you to JPEG - so get your exposure and white balance right in-camera because your editing scope will be limited.

Iso sensitivity spans ISO 100 to 1600 on the Casio and ISO 80 to 3200 on the Sony, however, practical usability caps at ISO 400 for both when you want acceptable noise levels.

While both incorporate an anti-aliasing filter for smoothing, that comes at a slight expense of fine detail sharpness. It’s a trade-off typical for consumer compacts.

Viewing and Interface: How You Frame Your Shots

Both cameras forgo an optical or electronic viewfinder, relying solely on their fixed 2.7-inch LCD screens rated around 230k dots. This was typical for compacts a decade ago but feels limiting today.

Sony’s screen edges out Casio’s with slightly better brightness and a more responsive refresh rate, which matters when tracking moving subjects or shooting in bright daylight. Neither model offers touchscreen input, so navigation rests on physical buttons and menus, which the Sony also executes with less lag.

However, neither camera incorporates image stabilization - a drawback that compounds difficulties in low light or telephoto reach.

Image Quality in Practice: Who Captures What Better?

To see how these cameras deliver when it counts, I put both through a battery of tests across genres - from portraits to landscapes - under varied lighting.

Casio EX S12 front Casio EX S12 screen back Sony W320 front Sony W320 screen back

Portraits

Skin tone rendition is crucial for portraits. The Casio EX-S12 renders skin tones with a modest warmth and natural saturation, but struggles to separate subject from background due to its relatively slow lens (F2.8 wide, dropping to F7.9 telephoto). Bokeh is minimal, and soft focus outside center frame was common. Autofocus is contrast-detection based, single-point, single-shot only - with no face or eye detection, subject tracking is nonexistent. I found Sony's W320 to offer marginally better autofocus reliability with its nine focus points and center weighting, leading to quicker target lock.

Landscapes

Resolution matters in landscapes, and here Sony’s small bump to 14MP translates to richer detail at base ISO. Both exhibit limited dynamic range due to sensor size, but Sony’s exposure metering with multi-segment flash modes gave better handling of shadow and highlight regions, especially under daylight contrast. However, neither camera is weather sealed - bad news for wet or dusty conditions on rugged hikes.

Wildlife & Sports

Neither camera is ideal for fast action. Casio’s shutter speed caps at 1/2000s, Sony at 1/1600s. Burst shooting is non-existent on Casio, and a sluggish one frame per second on Sony. Autofocus tracking is rudimentary or absent altogether, making it frustrating to capture moving wildlife or sports action crisply.

Street Photography

Street shooters often prize discreteness and portability. Sony's smaller size helps here, but the lack of fast autofocus and modest low-light capabilities limit opportunities in dim urban scenes. Casio’s longer zoom reach (36-108 mm equivalent) can be handy for candid distance shots.

Macro

Sony’s 4 cm macro focusing allowance lets you get pretty close to subjects for detail-rich snaps, while Casio’s lacking specific macro distance makes close-ups tricky.

Night & Astro

Neither camera shines in high ISO performance. Noise and shutter lag kick in quickly past ISO 400/800. Astro photography is practically a no-go given the slow max shutter speeds and absence of bulb mode.

Video Capabilities: Something to Consider?

Video recording options are entry-level on both models. Casio supports 720p HD at 24fps and downscaled VGA and QVGA at 30 and 15 fps respectively, while Sony caps at 640x480 VGA, also at 30 fps.

Neither offer microphone or headphone jacks, and both record in Motion JPEG - a file-heavy format with limited editing flexibility. Neither camera boasts in-body stabilization, so handheld footage can be shaky without extra gear.

In practice, the Casio offers better resolution and thus sharper videos, but Sony’s focus and exposure adjustments during video are more stable.

Battery Life and Storage: Practical Use Daily

Casio uses the NP-60 battery and Sony, the NP-BN1. Both offer modest battery life reflective of compact cameras in their era, averaging around 200 shots per charge in real use - less if you heavily use LCD and video. Neither feature USB charging - you’ll need a dedicated charger.

Sony’s support for multiple memory cards (SD and Memory Stick variants) offers flexibility, whereas Casio sticks with SD/SDHC and internal storage.

Build Quality and Durability

Neither camera is weather sealed or shock/waterproof. Both favor light weight and portability over ruggedness. For casual daily use, this is usually acceptable, but treat with care in demanding environments.

Connectivity and Extras

Casio surprises with Eye-Fi wireless SD card compatibility - an early attempt at wireless transfer - though it’s limited and dated in practicality. Sony lacks wireless connectivity but offers an HDMI port on both for direct playback.

No Bluetooth, NFC, GPS, or touch controls appear on either, unsurprisingly for their era.

Putting It All Together: How Do These Cameras Stack Up?

I’ve aggregated performance ratings considering sensor quality, autofocus, ergonomics, features, and value. Sony's W320 emerges ahead overall, given its slightly higher resolution, more versatile zoom range, and superior autofocus performance.

Breaking down by photography type:

• Portraits: Sony edges out slightly due to better focus points; both struggle with shallow depth-of-field and bokeh.
• Landscapes: Sony’s resolution and metering win again.
• Wildlife & Sports: Neither performs well; Sony better in autofocus speed but limited frame rate.
• Street: Sony for size and handling; Casio for zoom reach.
• Macro: Sony only.
• Low Light/Night: Both poor; Casio’s marginally cleaner noise.
• Video: Casio for resolution, Sony for focus stability.
• Travel: Sony’s smaller size and card compatibility favored.
• Professional Use: Neither suitable beyond casual consumer use.

Who Should Buy Which?

Choose the Casio EX-S12 if…

• You're on a strict budget and want a basic point-and-shoot with decent image quality.
• You prioritize slightly cleaner images at low ISOs.
• You occasionally shoot HD video and want 720p resolution.
• You appreciate Eye-Fi wireless card support for early wireless transfer solutions.
• Your photography is casual, indoors or outdoors in good light.

Choose the Sony W320 if…

• You want a slightly more compact and pocket-friendly camera.
• You need sharper images with higher resolution for landscapes and casual shoots.
• Autofocus reliability and multi-area focus points are important.
• You like macro photography with 4 cm close focus.
• You prefer better flash control and video focus consistency.
• You want versatile memory card options.

Final Thoughts from Someone Who’s Tested Both in the Field

After plenty of hands-on experience with both, I’d say neither camera can truly compete with modern compacts or smartphones, but given their era, the Sony W320 offers a more rounded, practical shooting experience with better autofocus and image quality, albeit at a higher price point.

The Casio EX-S12 remains a fun, low-cost option for those who want straightforward shooting with a useful zoom range, especially if you mostly shoot stationary subjects in good light.

If you plan to use these cameras today, temper your expectations on speed and image quality, and consider them more as backup, travel snapshots, or nostalgic collectors’ items than workhorses.

Happy shooting!

Note: Throughout testing, I assessed image output under matched lighting conditions, using standardized test charts and real-world scenes, and measured shutter lag, autofocus acquisition time, and burst shooting capabilities with precise timing tools. The images included reflect typical output without edits, to give you the most honest, practical performance preview.

If you have any questions about how these compacts might fit your style or want help picking a modern alternative, drop a comment below - I love digging into photography gear for enthusiasts like you.