Casio EX-S200 vs. Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W560: Ultracompact Shootout from Every Angle

When you’re in the market for an ultracompact camera, you’re looking for something that fits snugly in your pocket (or taxed handbag), yet offers enough specs and ease of use to actually get excited about snapping photos - not just quick snapshots. Today, we're diving headfirst into two pocket-sized competitors from the early 2010s: the Casio EX-S200 and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W560 (hereafter, Sony W560). Both cameras come with their fixed lenses and modest sensor sizes, and each has merit. But, having taken both out for a spin, scrutinized their specs, and pored over image galleries, I aim to peel back the marketing fuzz and showcase what you really get with each - and for whom each camera makes sense.

So buckle up for a roughly 2,500-word expedition covering everything from sensor tech to macro focus, video chops to ergonomics, and even deeper dives into how these tiny titans handle Portraits, Landscapes, Wildlife, and more. I'll sprinkle in images, real-world impressions, and the kind of geeky tidbits that only fifteen years of camera testing can provide.

Ready? Let’s settle this pocket-sized duel with clarity and flair.

Size and Handling - Can You Feel the Difference in Your Hand?

Ultracompacts’ biggest selling point? Portability. They’re meant to be easy to carry and quick to use, right? Let’s start with the basics - how do these two compare physically?

The Casio EX-S200 measures 100 x 55 x 18 mm and weighs about 132 grams, while the Sony W560 is slightly smaller and lighter - clocking in at 94 x 56 x 19 mm and 110 grams. What does this mean practically? The Casio's a bit longer but slightly slimmer in depth; Sony’s more compact overall, sliding into pockets with less fuss. For urban street shooters or travelers who prize discreteness, the lighter Sony W560 edges out.

Ergonomically, Casio’s slightly chunkier form offers a firmer grip, which can matter if you have larger hands or like the reassurance of a physical hold. The Sony’s slicker design feels a bit more “toy-like” in hand - nothing alarming, just less substantial.

Moving beyond raw dimensions, button placement and control layout (discussed later) play a huge role in user friendliness, but what's clear is neither camera overwhelms your palm. If weight and slenderness win your heart, Sony wins; if a sturdier grip and a bit of heft feel like control, Casio gets the nod.

Design and Controls - Which Camera Feels Smarter to Use?

When you pick up a camera, the “user interface” defines how quickly you can capture the moment. Both models came out more than a decade ago, before touchscreens became commonplace. Here’s a look at their top-down control layout and design philosophy:

Peering down on both cameras, the Casio EX-S200 opts for a minimalist, no-frills design with buttons lined up around the shutter. It has manual focus options (more on that later) and a few exposure-related quick toggles, though its simplicity means fewer options are accessible on the fly.

The Sony W560, on the other hand, offers more dedicated control buttons and a multi-directional dial that instantly felt more intuitive during my testing. The shutter button is responsive, and the menu navigation dial made shifting shooting modes less of a finger-fumble compared to the Casio’s tighter cluster.

Neither camera sports an electronic viewfinder, so composing relies entirely on the LCD - something with trade-offs in bright sunlight.

Sensor Specs and Image Quality - The Heart of the Matter

At the core of every camera lies the sensor, and despite both packing similar 1/2.3-inch CCD sensors (about 6.17 x 4.55 mm, or roughly 28.07 mm²), the devil’s in the details.

Each camera offers 14 megapixels resolution - standard for ultracompacts of their day. In theory, this gives you up to 4320 x 3240 pixels in image size, decent for prints up to 8x10 inches or web sharing. However, sensor size and the underlying image processor dictate the real-world quality.

CCD sensors, unlike contemporary CMOS sensors (common in newer cameras), generally boast superior color depth and less rolling shutter artifact, but often suffer in low-light performance and power efficiency. Both Casio and Sony's CCDs come with anti-aliasing filters to reduce moiré, though this slightly softens fine detail.

In direct comparisons, the Sony W560 displayed somewhat better noise control at moderate ISOs (up to ISO 400), likely helped by its BIONZ image processor - a tried-and-true engine Sony has refined over the years. Casio’s Exilim Engine 5.0 does a respectable job but tends to produce more evident noise and color artifacts at higher ISOs.

From a dynamic range perspective, both cameras are modest performers; neither is a landscape champion, but Sony’s slightly better processing gives it a bit more "headroom" in shadow recovery. So if you favor crisp skies and greener fields, Sony has your back.

Display Screens and Viewfinders - Is Bigger Always Better?

Both cameras forgo viewfinders, offering fixed LCD screens as your sole composing tool. Their specs differ slightly:

• Casio EX-S200: 2.7-inch display, 230,000 dots
• Sony W560: 3.0-inch “Clear Photo LCD”, also 230,000 dots

On paper, the Sony’s screen is bigger by a hair, and “Clear Photo” tech promises better sunlight visibility and color vibrancy. In practice, the difference was palpable during outdoor shoots. Sony’s screen was notably easier to view under bright conditions, with clearer colors aiding composition and review.

Casio’s screen felt washed out comparatively and sometimes required a shaded hand to evaluate exposure or focus precisely, which can break your shoot’s rhythm.

Neither camera supports touch or articulation, so shooting from tricky angles means relying on “blind” framing, or resorting to live view through the screen.

Autofocus and Lens Performance - What Can Your Shotmaster Do?

Both cameras come equipped with fixed zoom lenses roughly in the same focal range:

• Casio EX-S200: 27-108 mm equivalent (4x zoom), max aperture f/3.2-5.9
• Sony W560: 26-104 mm equivalent (4x zoom), max aperture f/2.7-5.7

Notice how Sony opens a full stop wider at the wide end? This is no trivial detail. A wider aperture means more available light, better low-light autofocus assistance, and the potential for slightly shallower depth of field (read: bokeh).

When handholding and shooting portraits, the Sony lens's ability to gather more light was noticeable. Skin tones retained warmth and clarity, with less noise creeping in even in indoor lighting.

Autofocus-wise, the Casio relies on contrast-detection AF with a single focus mode - manual focus is possible with an on-screen slider, but frankly, doing so on a tiny screen with no zoom-in assist felt fiddly at best. It lacks face detection, tracking, or multiple AF points.

The Sony W560 improves on this with 9 AF points (some of which are believed cross-type, though Sony doesn’t specify), contrast-detection AF with multi-area focus, and faster acquisition. No face detection, still, but the ability to select different focus zones was useful in street shooting and casual portraiture.

While neither camera is built for professional-action autofocus, if you care about speed and accuracy just a smidge, Sony’s system feels perceptibly quicker and more reliable.

Portrait Photography - Can They Paint People in Their Best Light?

Portraiture often demands precise color rendition, smooth bokeh, sharp eye focus, and pleasing skin tones. Two cameras with small sensors and fixed zoom lenses are unlikely to compete with DSLRs or mirrorless systems here, but let’s see how these entry-level ultracompacts fare.

The Sony W560’s wider aperture at the wide end is an advantage, particularly indoors or under soft natural light. Although neither camera can truly replicate creamy background blur (with both limited by sensor size and focal length), Sony's optics did produce a gentler transition between subject and background.

Casio’s narrower aperture and less responsive AF made portraits feel more “clinical,” sometimes pinching skin tones and failing to nail quick focus on moving subjects (e.g. candid smiles).

Neither supports eye-detection autofocus - a shame considering even budget cameras dabbled in this by 2011 - but Sony’s multi-area AF helped compositions where subjects weren’t centered. Manual focus on Casio is there, but servicing portraits that rely on fast face picking becomes tedious here.

Recommendation: For casual portrait shooters prioritizing ease and better skin rendition, Sony W560 is the better pick. The Casio is acceptable only if you prize compactness over quality.

Landscape Photography - Dynamic Range and Resolution in Nature’s Challenge

Landscape photography clarifies lens sharpness and sensor mettle. Here we measure detail retention, dynamic range (ability to hold highlights and shadows), and overall exposure latitude.

Both cameras offer max resolutions of 14 MP at 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratios. Sony uniquely supports 16:9 natively, handy for panoramic compositions, whereas Casio also offers 3:2 if you prefer a classic look.

Neither camera sports weather sealing or rugged construction, so shooting landscapes in wet or dusty conditions requires careful handling.

In my comparative shooting sessions under bright daylight, both cameras produced sharp-enough images for casual sharing, but cropping for print (say, 11 x 14 inches or larger) exposed limits - fine leaf textures and distant elements softened near the edges. Sony had a slight edge due to its lens’ sharper glass and better in-camera sharpening algorithms via the BIONZ processor.

Dynamic range remains modest on both, with highlights clipping quickly in bright skies - HDR bracketed shots aren’t an option as neither supports bracketing or RAW shooting.

If landscape is your main gig, these cameras are fun starters but quickly outgrown. Consider them undersized sensor devices that deliver pleasing snapshots rather than portfolio-grade images.

Wildlife Photography - Fast Enough for That Squirrel?

Blast away! Wildlife photography demands quick autofocus, rapid burst rates, and long telephoto reach. These tiny ultracompacts are broadly outmatched compared to DSLRs or mirrorless cameras paired with dedicated telephoto lenses, but let’s put them to the test.

The Casio lacks continuous shooting modes. Its shutter speed tops out at 1/2000s, which is reasonable, but burst modes are absent. Autofocus is contrast-only single-shot, which is sluggish for fast critters.

Sony W560 shoots continuously at around 1 fps - not much, honestly, but better than Casio’s lack. Its multi-area AF also helps tracking subject movement marginally. Telescoping range is identical at about 100+ mm equivalent (~4x zoom), suitable for small animals in moderate proximity but not distant wildlife.

While neither camera impresses on versatility or fast capture, Sony W560’s slight edge in autofocus and continuous shooting makes it a more tolerable (though not stellar) choice for casual wildlife snaps. Casio’s lack of AF tracking or burst shooting significantly harms chances of catching those split-second moments.

Sports Photography - A Tough Ask for Compact Cameras

Sports photography is utterly challenging for ultracompacts, and neither the Casio EX-S200 nor the Sony W560 is designed for fast-moving subjects or low-light action. With low burst frame rates and single-shot autofocus modes, these cameras are effectively disqualified from serious sports shooting.

Sony’s 1 fps burst and better AF make it a marginally more viable option. Casio’s shutter priority or aperture priority modes are non-existent, removing any manual exposure control for unpredictable lighting conditions found in stadiums or gymnasiums.

In short: don’t bank on either of these cameras if sports are a priority.

Street Photography - Discreet, Quick, and Light

Street photographers crave a quiet, responsive camera, one that doesn’t intimidate the subject or slow the shoot. Size, weight, and startup speed matter greatly.

In the urbano hustle, Sony wins hands down for size and weight. Casio feels slightly bulkier but not exactly obtrusive.

Both cameras lack silent shutters (no electronic shutter modes), so you’ll get the familiar click that might draw attention. Neither has a viewfinder, so getting those classic candid shots can be tricky - LCD screen visibility in sunlight is critical here, and Sony’s Clear Photo LCD helps maintain faster framing.

Sony’s faster autofocus and multi-area AF zone choices make it easier to grab fleeting street moments.

For casual street photographs, Sony is the better fit. Casio works but asks for some patience.

Macro Photography - Getting Close with Precision

For macro, we evaluate minimum focusing distance, magnification, and ease of precise manual focusing.

Sony W560 offers a minimum macro focus distance of 5 cm, which lets you get fairly close for flower or insect snaps. Casio doesn’t specify a macro distance, but in practice, getting close is harder due to the lens’s narrow aperture and no dedicated macro mode.

Manual focus is possible only on Casio, but with no focus assist, it’s challenging. Sony’s lack of manual focus is mitigated by accurate autofocus close-up capability.

If macro matters, Sony W560 has an edge.

Night and Astro Photography - The Dark Horse?

Low light shoots and star fields push small cameras well beyond their comfort zones.

Sony’s wider aperture at 26 mm and better ISO noise handling mean it outperforms Casio notably after dark. The Casio’s max ISO is 3200, but noise is pretty aggressive at 800 and above, leading to mushy images.

No RAW shooting on either limits post-processing latitude for noise reduction or highlight recoveries - so what you get is what you have.

Neither camera supports long exposure modes or bulb shooting essential for detailed astro shots, nor do they have built-in interval timers for star trails.

Night shoot? Sony again, but only marginally.

Video Capabilities - More Than Just Moving Pictures?

Video on ultracompacts often feels like an afterthought, but sometimes surprises.

Casio EX-S200 shoots 1280x720 at 20 fps (Motion JPEG), which is a rather low frame rate and a dated codec - resulting in large files and less smooth footage.

Sony W560, however, offers 1280x720 at 30 fps, using MPEG-4, which is far more efficient and provides smoother video. Sony also includes HDMI output, absent from Casio, useful for immediate playback on big screens.

Neither has microphone or headphone ports, so audio capture is limited, and no stabilization is available beyond optical image stabilization on Sony.

For casual video, Sony wins hands down. Casio’s video specs feel like a relic.

Travel and Everyday Use - Your Pocket Companion’s Suitability

Travel photography demands versatility, battery life, and easy connectivity.

Sony W560 supports Eye-Fi wireless cards, allowing photo transfer over Wi-Fi if you invest in compatible SD cards - a nice-to-have for quick sharing on the road. Casio lacks any wireless features.

Sony accepts a wider variety of memory cards including Memory Stick Duo and SDXC, while Casio only supports SD/SDHC.

Battery models differ but both suffice for modest daily shooting - no official battery life stats exist here, so bringing extra charged batteries is wise.

Physically, Sony’s smaller size aids packing, and the bigger screen makes reviewing images on the go more pleasant.

Professional Use - Can They Make the Grade?

Neither camera is aimed at professionals. Limited by sensor size, no RAW capability, no manual exposure, and weak autofocus systems, these cameras are consumer-level tools.

File formats are JPEG-only - no tethering, no advanced workflow support.

But for backup documentation or quick proof-of-concept shots in controlled environments, they might serve as fill-ins or lightweight alternatives.

Summing It Up - Where Each Camera Shines and Falls

Having scrutinized both cameras across disciplines and specs, here’s a handy visual summary of their overall and genre-specific performances:

Casio EX S200 front Casio EX S200 screen back Sony W560 front Sony W560 screen back

In essence:

• Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W560 is the camera to beat here: smaller, lighter, sharper images, better autofocus, wider aperture lens, improved video, and more user-friendly design. Great for casual photographers, travel enthusiasts, and users who want a balance of size and performance without the complexity of interchangeable lenses.

• Casio EX-S200 offers competent stills with manual focus options at a more affordable or free-standing bargain price (often found used), but its slower AF, smaller screen, and dated video hold it back in most real-world use cases.

Final Recommendations

If you are:

• An urban street or travel shooter craving compactness, workable shooting speed, and easy sharing - Sony W560 wins hands down.
• A macro or close-up hobbyist who buds into flower close-ups or insect portraits - Sony again nudges ahead.
• A casual portrait shooter with limited indoor lighting and a desire for richer colors - Sony’s wider aperture helps.
• A video enthusiast wanting smooth, 720p HD at 30fps - Sony’s video specs seal the deal.
• A budget shopper or collector who wants very simple photography, perhaps for kids or souvenirs, and manual focus play - Casio might be enough.

Closing Thoughts

As a seasoned reviewer, I always urge stepping beyond specs and into shooting reality. These cameras exemplify a time when ultracompacts were a compromise - light and pocketable but limited in creative control and image quality. Since then, smartphones have largely obliterated this segment, but if you stumble upon these models secondhand, or simply appreciate their nostalgic charm, Sony’s W560 offers clearer advantages.

And remember: technique, understanding light, and good composition trump gear specs every time. So pick whichever camera that feels comfortable, learn its quirks, and capture your world with joy.

Happy shooting!