Compact Camera Clash: Casio EX-S200 vs Sony TX66 - Which Ultracompact Makes the Cut?

Stepping into the intriguing world of ultracompact cameras often feels like a balancing act between convenience, image quality, and sheer capability. Today, I’m pitting two pocket-sized contenders head-to-head: the Casio EX-S200 from 2010 and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX66 launched in 2012. Both cameras promise portability and ease, but how do they hold up under the demands of real-world photography? As someone who’s tested thousands of cameras over the years, I’ll walk you through the nuts and bolts, plus show where each shines or falters.

Let’s dive in with a good look at their physical designs.

Pocket-Sized Rivalry: Handling and Ergonomics

When choosing a compact camera, size and grip can make or break your experience. The Casio EX-S200 and Sony TX66 both target users craving a lightweight, slim profile - ideal for travel or street shooting on the fly.

The Casio EX-S200 measures 100 x 55 x 18 mm and weighs about 132 grams. It’s fairly slim, but its blocky rectangular shape means it sits flat in your pocket without much fuss. The button layout is minimal, reflecting its entry-level nature. No touchscreen here – just physical buttons that require precise finger control, which can be a mixed bag in fast shooting situations.

In contrast, the Sony TX66 is even slimmer at 93 x 54 x 13 mm and lighter at 109 grams, almost featherweight. Its flush touchscreen delivers a smooth glassy surface that many will appreciate for intuitive shooting and menu navigation. The TX66’s sleekness wins points for discretion and portability - and the OLED screen (more on that later) adds a premium feel.

Ergonomically, the Casio feels a touch chunkier but arguably easier to handle if you have larger hands or want a little more grip. The Sony, with its thin profile and smooth chassis, may require a bit more finesse to grip securely, especially for prolonged shooting.

Design Philosophy: Control Layout and Usability

Let’s flip these cameras over and check their control schemes.

The Casio’s top plate is straightforward: a power button, shutter release, and zoom toggle dominate. There’s no dedicated exposure compensation or mode dials, effectively meaning you’re working mostly in fully automatic or scene presets. A “clubs for thumbs” approach to control - simple, low-frills, but not conducive to manual tinkering.

Sony takes a slightly more advanced route despite its compactness. The TX66 offers touchscreen controls and exposure-based customization through menus. Physical buttons are minimal but thoughtfully placed - especially the zoom and shutter - which lets you maintain discretion without fumbling.

Between these two, I’d say the Sony TX66 wins hands down in user interface design if you value quick touchscreen access, while Casio appeals if you just want point-and-shoot simplicity.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality Essentials

At the heart of any camera lies its sensor, dictating detail retention, noise performance, and dynamic range. Both models use a 1/2.3-inch sensor size but differ significantly in sensor technology and resolution.

The EX-S200 employs a 14-megapixel CCD sensor, the older workhorse of compact cameras. Its imaging engine, the Exilim Engine 5.0, is designed for efficient processing but inherently limited by CCD drawbacks: noise at higher ISOs, lower dynamic range, and slower readout speeds.

Sony’s TX66 upgrades to an 18-megapixel BSI-CMOS sensor. This backside-illuminated tech collects light more efficiently, improving low-light performance and dynamic range compared to traditional CCDs. While both sensors occupy the same physical size (roughly 28 mm²), Sony’s approach delivers sharper images with less noise, especially above ISO 400.

The EX-S200 tops out at ISO 3200, but noise becomes crippling well before then. The TX66’s maximum ISO of 12,800 sounds impressive but is only useful at modest levels due to inevitable grain. Still, its superior sensor and BIONZ processor produce cleaner images overall.

For anyone interested in image quality - or who values decent low-light and shadow detail - the Sony TX66 has a marked advantage.

Evaluating the Shooting Experience: Autofocus and Exposure

Neither camera sports advanced manual exposure, aperture priority, or shutter priority modes; they’re firmly in the automatic zone. But autofocus implementation is worth discussing.

Casio sticks to contrast-detection AF with single-point AF only, lacking face or eye-detection. Its focus speed is serviceable in good light but slows significantly indoors or in shade. No continuous autofocus or tracking is available.

The Sony TX66 ups the ante with contrast-detection AF but also incorporates face detection and even AF tracking capabilities - a big deal in compact cameras of this era. It offers touch AF, meaning you can tap your subject directly on the screen for rapid focus acquisition, and the contrast-based AF is quicker and more reliable overall.

Unfortunately, neither camera supports phase-detection AF or continuous AF during video, limiting their performance in fast-moving scenes.

In summary:

• Casio EX-S200 autofocus: basic, slow, reliable mainly with stationary subjects
• Sony TX66 autofocus: faster, face-aware, touch-assisted, better in challenging light

LCD Screens and User Interface

Once again, the Sony’s screen claims superiority through raw specs and usability.

The EX-S200 features a 2.7-inch fixed LCD with only 230k dots of resolution. That results in a somewhat grainy, dim display that’s tough to evaluate sharpness or exposure precisely, especially in bright outdoor conditions.

Sony’s TX66 boasts a 3.3-inch OLED display with a much higher resolution of 1230k dots and touchscreen interaction. This screen offers rich contrast, vibrant colors, and excellent viewing angles - transforming framing and image review from guesswork to a reliable step. For street and travel photography, this display is a huge plus.

The lack of an electronic viewfinder (EVF) on both cameras means relying on the screen, but the TX66 treats you with a far better viewfinder substitute.

Lens Performance and Versatility

While both cameras have fixed (non-interchangeable) zoom lenses, their specs reveal notable differences.

• Casio EX-S200: 27-108mm equivalent (4× zoom), aperture f/3.2-5.9
• Sony TX66: 26-130mm equivalent (5× zoom), aperture f/3.5-4.8

The Sony lens offers a slightly wider zoom range (starting wider, ending farther telephoto) combined with a consistently brighter maximum aperture, especially at the telephoto end - meaning better low-light capacity and depth-of-field control.

Plus, the TX66 supports close focusing down to 1 cm - great for macro snapping of flowers, insects, or textures - while Casio’s macro range is unspecified, but typically limited on such models.

Both models include sensor-based image stabilization:

• Casio: sensor-shift stabilization (CCD compatible)
• Sony: optical image stabilization combined with sensor shift

Sony’s hybrid optical stabilization tends to deliver steadier shots at longer focal lengths and during video capture.

Real-World Versatility Across Photography Genres

I’ve gathered sample images from both cameras, tested across different genre scenarios to reveal strengths and weaknesses.

Casio EX S200 front Casio EX S200 screen back Sony TX66 front Sony TX66 screen back

Portraits:

• Sony’s higher resolution sensor and face detection allow for better skin tone rendition and sharp focus on eyes. The brighter lens opening on the telephoto end creates a somewhat creamier background blur (bokeh) compared to Casio’s flatter images.
• Casio’s slower AF and smaller aperture limit creative depth control and sharpness. Skin tones can appear a bit washed out due to the CCD sensor’s narrower dynamic range.

Landscapes:

• Sony’s wider zoom and higher resolution deliver punchier, more detailed shots with richer colors. The OLED screen helps in composing intricate landscapes.
• Casio manages okay in bright daylight but struggles with shadow detail and contrast, resulting in somewhat “flat” images.

Wildlife:

• Neither is ideal for fast action, but Sony’s 10 fps burst mode and autofocus tracking make it a better bet for casual wildlife snapshots.
• Casio lacks continuous AF and burst shooting, missing the mark for moving subjects.

Sports:

• Both cameras’ limited shutter speeds (Casio: 1/2000s max, Sony: 1/4000s max) and slow AF systems put them out of contention for serious sports work. Sony edges out with better burst options but isn’t a sports specialist by any means.

Street Photography:

• Casio’s chunkier build is less discreet but still pocketable.
• Sony’s slim body, touchscreen, and faster AF suit quick candid shooting better, plus the OLED screen adapts well to changing light in urban environments.

Macro:

• Sony’s 1-cm macro focusing and stabilization are a boon here; Casio’s lack of macro details relegates it to casual close-ups only.

Night/Astro:

• Neither offers long exposure modes beyond standard shutter speeds; however, Sony’s higher ISO ceiling and sensor tech let it capture more usable images under dim conditions.

Video:

• Casio limits you to 720p at 20 fps in Motion JPEG - a dated, bulky format with mediocre fluidity.
• Sony supports crisp 1080p at 60 fps plus AVCHD encoding, delivering noticeably smoother and higher-quality footage. The optical stabilization also aids handheld recording.

Travel:

• Both cameras are compact and lightweight, but Sony’s added focal length range, better screen, and photo quality suit demanding travel photography better.

Professional Use:

• Neither offers RAW support, manual exposure modes, or advanced tethering, so these are purely consumer ultracompacts, not tools for pros needing full creative control or post-processing flexibility.

Technical Build and Connectivity

Both cameras lack weather sealing and rugged construction, so neither is recommended for harsh conditions.

Casio weighs a little more and is thicker; Sony is more delicate but also more pocket-friendly. Both offer only a single SD card slot.

Connectivity is very basic:

• Casio offers USB 2.0 for transferring files, no Wi-Fi or Bluetooth
• Sony includes USB 2.0 and an HDMI port for direct playback on TVs - but no wireless features either

Battery life favors Sony slightly, rated at around 250 shots per charge, while Casio’s official numbers are unspecified but generally lower given older tech.

Putting It All Together: Performance Ratings

To get an at-a-glance sense of overall merits, here’s a summary of performance scores gathered from hands-on testing across categories.

Sony TX66 leads in image quality, autofocus, screen, video, and overall versatility. Casio EX-S200 holds ground in simplicity and basic handling but lags behind across the board.

Breaking down by photographic genres:

Wildlife, sports, night, and video show clear Sony advantages. Portrait and landscape photography also favor Sony. Casio scores modestly in travel and street use due to its compactness but is otherwise clearly outmatched.

Who Should Buy Which? A Practical Recommendation

Casio EX-S200 – Best For:

• Absolute beginners or cheapskates on a shoestring budget looking for a basic ultracompact camera with straightforward operation
• Users prioritizing physical buttons and simplicity over features
• Buyers who want a reliable everyday point-and-shoot with decent daylight snapshots but no aspirations towards advanced photo techniques or video quality

Pros:

• Simple, reliable interface, no confusing menus
• Decent 14 MP images in good light
• Sensor-shift stabilization for handheld shots
• Very affordable on used markets

Cons:

• Slow, limited autofocus
• Lower resolution, noisier images in low light
• Mediocre 2.7” low-res LCD
• No RAW or manual exposure controls
• Limited zoom and aperture flexibility

Sony TX66 – Best For:

• Enthusiasts and budget-conscious prosumers wanting high-quality ultracompact images with more creative control in automatic modes
• Travelers and street photographers who value compactness combined with a bright zoom lens and touchscreen usability
• Casual videographers needing solid 1080p recording with smooth stabilization
• Users who want sharper images, better low-light performance, and face detection AF

Pros:

• 18 MP BSI-CMOS sensor with great dynamic range and low noise
• 5× zoom lens with brighter aperture, excellent close focus
• Sharp, vibrant 3.3” OLED touchscreen
• Fast AF with face detection and tracking
• HD 1080p video at 60 fps with optical stabilization
• Lightweight and sleek design

Cons:

• No RAW support and no manual exposure modes (typical for ultracompacts)
• Battery life moderate but not exceptional
• Lack of wireless features in a 2012 camera

Final Thoughts: Which Ultracompact Camera Packs More Punch?

Having run these two through my test routines, I can confidently say the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX66 is the more capable and versatile ultracompact camera. It offers better image quality, faster autofocus, enhanced video, and a more usable user interface with its touchscreen OLED. For enthusiasts seeking a straightforward travel or street shooter with a bit more polish and creativity in their images, the TX66 is worth its modest price premium.

The Casio EX-S200, while dependable in straightforward sunny conditions and extremely budget-friendly, feels outdated quickly, especially for users craving higher resolution, speed, or video. It’s acceptable as a basic snapshot camera but leaves professionals or enthusiast hobbyists wanting more.

So unless you’re a purist who values simplicity over all else, the Sony TX66 is the clear winner here - with enough perks and performance to keep your photography sharp and fun on the go.

Thanks for joining me on this in-depth look at two classic ultracompacts. If portability and competent imaging in a stylish package matter most to you, the TX66 should be on your shortlist. And if you want a no-nonsense, easy-to-use pocket camera without breaking the bank, the EX-S200 may suffice - just adjust your expectations accordingly.

Happy shooting, wherever your photography journey takes you!

END OF ARTICLE