Casio EX-S200 vs Sony Cyber-shot W690: A Hands-On Comparison of Two Compact Cameras

As someone who has carefully tested and handled hundreds of compact cameras over the past 15 years, I appreciate how these pocket-friendly shooters can deliver surprising image quality and convenience when chosen wisely. Today, I’m diving deep into two older yet interesting models still appealing to photography enthusiasts on a budget or those looking for ultra-portability: the Casio EX-S200 and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W690. Both hail from major Japanese brands and are designed for users who want simplicity, lightness, and reasonable zoom range without the bulk of an interchangeable lens system.

I’ll share my hands-on testing impressions, detailed technical insights, and practical advice on who should consider each model, with an eye on how they perform across various photography disciplines and shooting scenarios. Let’s explore these cameras’ strengths and compromises to help you decide which fits your needs best.

A Tale of Two Cameras: Size, Handling, and Design

When you first hold these two compacts side-by-side, the difference in body design and ergonomics is striking. The Casio EX-S200 embodies the ultra-slim “ultracompact” ethos with a wafer-thin profile designed to slip easily into a shirt pocket or clutch bag. Its dimensions are about 100 x 55 x 18 mm and it weighs an impressively light 132 grams. Compare that with the slightly chunkier Sony W690, which measures 94 x 56 x 22 mm and weighs 142 grams - still very pocketable but with a bit more grip and heft.

While I found the Casio’s slimness undeniably convenient for travel and street photography where discretion matters, the reduced thickness also means compromises in control placement and handling comfort during extended shooting. The Sony’s marginally greater depth allows for a more confident grip and bigger buttons, which I appreciated when shooting in brisk conditions or on the move.

Switching to the top view, the control layouts reinforce this difference: the Casio offers a minimalistic approach, prioritizing simplicity over customization, while the Sony incorporates more accessible dials and shutter-release ergonomics for intuitive use.

From my testing, a camera that feels natural in your hands can increase shooting confidence, which pays dividends especially in candid or street photography.

Sensor and Image Quality: Technical Heart of the Matter

Both cameras utilize a 1/2.3” CCD sensor measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm in physical dimensions, which is a standard sensor size for their class and era. The Casio EX-S200 has a 14MP resolution, and the Sony DSC-W690 slightly edges it with 16MP. Despite this resolution difference, sensor area and technology remain very similar, meaning both share comparable noise performance and dynamic range characteristics.

Early CCD sensors in compact cameras often struggled with dynamic range and high ISO noise, and these models are no exception. In practical shooting, I noticed the highest native ISO of 3200 on both yields aggressive noise reduction and color degradation, limiting their use under very low-light scenarios. For cleanest images, sticking at or below ISO 100-200 was optimal.

The difference between 14 and 16 megapixels does provide a slight edge to the Sony when printing or cropping, but the image quality gap is marginal at base ISOs due to CCD sensor limits and older image processors - Casio’s proprietary Exilim Engine 5.0 vs Sony’s well-regarded BIONZ engine. Sony's processor excels at noise reduction and color fidelity, which I found repeatedly in the field.

Both cameras use an anti-aliasing filter to reduce moiré, impacting sharpness minimally but benefiting JPEG quality.

Shooting Experience: Autofocus, Stabilization, and Controls

Neither model offers advanced manual controls like aperture or shutter priority modes, keeping the target user in mind - the casual enthusiast or traveler seeking point-and-shoot ease.

The Casio EX-S200 employs a contrast-detection autofocus system with single-point AF only. It doesn’t support face detection or continuous AF. The Sony W690 brings some enhancements with face detection, center and multi-area AF zones, as well as basic tracking capabilities. In practice, this gave Sony a noticeable edge locking focus on human subjects especially in complex scenes or partial occlusion, which is invaluable in street and portrait photography.

Both cameras lack phase-detection sensors or hybrid AF systems seen in newer models, so their focusing speed and accuracy can lag, especially indoors or with low contrast. The EX-S200 feels slower to lock and hunt more compared to the W690.

Image stabilization differs too, with the Casio relying on sensor-shift stabilization and the Sony implementing optical image stabilization (OIS). OIS is generally more effective in reducing motion blur at longer focal lengths, so Sony’s 10x zoom combined with OIS translated to sharper images in telephoto shots and handheld macro attempts from my shooting tests.

LCD Screen and User Interface: Reviewing Your Shots

LCD screens remain fixed on both cameras with no touch capabilities, reflecting their entry-level positioning. The Casio’s 2.7-inch screen at 230k dots provides a decent but not dazzling preview, while Sony ups the ante with a slightly larger 3-inch ClearPhoto TFT LCD at the same resolution, making image review more pleasant.

Color rendering on the Sony’s LCD appears more natural and vibrant, aiding composition and exposure evaluation. While neither offers electronic viewfinders, in daylight I found the Sony’s screen more visible, which is crucial for street and outdoor photography.

Versatility in Zoom and Macro Abilities

The lens focal ranges reflect divergent philosophies: Casio packs a 27-108mm equivalent zoom (4x), while Sony offers a powerful 25-250mm equivalent zoom (10x). This marked difference heavily influences practical shooting scenarios.

Sony’s extended telephoto reach opens doors to wildlife, travel, and sports shooters who prefer not changing lenses or carrying bulky gear. Despite its slightly narrower maximum aperture (F3.3-5.9), the longer zoom combined with OIS enhances flexibility.

While Casio’s lens is wider at the short end, offering easier framing in tight indoor spaces or landscapes, it lacks macro-specific features entirely. Sony supports a close focusing distance of 5 cm that stepped up macro potential in my tests, capturing fine details with graceful background separation thanks to longer focal length compression.

Real-World Usage Across Photography Styles

Portrait Photography:
Both cameras face challenges rendering nuanced skin tones and natural bokeh given their small sensors and limited aperture lenses. However, Sony’s face detection autofocus and 10x zoom allow for better subject isolation and framing, resulting in more flattering close-ups in controlled lighting. Casio’s simpler AF system demands more patience and ideal lighting to avoid out-of-focus portraits.

Landscape Photography:
The slightly wider lens on the Casio (27mm) gives more room for expansive scenes compared to Sony’s 25mm, though the difference is minor. Neither camera boasts advanced weather sealing or exceptional dynamic range capabilities, so shooting in harsh conditions or highly contrasty landscapes requires bracketing or post-processing to maximize detail recovery.

Wildlife Photography:
Sony’s 10x zoom and optical stabilizer shine here, allowing handheld photos of distant subjects. The Casio’s 4x zoom limits you to relatively closer subjects or cropping post-capture, which reduces effective resolution. Both cameras’ contrast-detection AF limits fast-action tracking but Sony’s tracking autofocus is a slight advantage.

Sports Photography:
Neither camera offers fast continuous shooting rates or sophisticated autofocus tracking needed for action shots. Casio’s lack of continuous AF and single shot mode only places it firmly behind Sony, which can shoot one frame per second and offers limited AF tracking to assist. Still, these models are best avoided if sports is a core interest.

Street Photography:
Casio’s ultra-slim body excels for discretion, pocketability, and quick deployment in urban environments. The thin shape minimizes intrusion and attracts less attention. However, slower AF and limited zoom may frustrate some street shooters. Sony, while thicker, is still portable and the more versatile zoom paired with face detection benefits candid portraiture.

Macro Photography:
Sony wins hands-down due to 5cm minimum focusing distance and longer zoom range for tight framing. Casio lacks macro mode and hovering close is not effective. Stabilization on both helps reduce blur in macro shots, but Sony’s optical system provides clearer results.

Night and Astro Photography:
Small sensors limit these cameras’ long-exposure and high ISO capabilities. Sony’s maximum shutter speed is 1/1600s (max slow shutter 30s), Casio ranges faster shutter from 4 to 1/2000s. Neither offers manual exposure modes or RAW output, severely limiting creative control in low light. I recommend external supports and post-editing to optimize night shots. Sony’s superior noise reduction coaxed slightly cleaner results at ISO 3200.

Video Capabilities:
Sony dominates in video with 720p at 30fps in MPEG-4 format, producing smoother footage suitable for casual use, whereas Casio maxes out at 720p 20fps in Motion JPEG - a format leading to larger files and choppier motion.

Neither camera offers external microphone inputs or image stabilization specifically optimized for video, so results are basic.

Travel Photography:
Here the comparison tightens. Casio’s slimness and pocketability make it a fantastic travel companion when prioritizing carry convenience. The Sony’s longer zoom range and slightly better performance across diverse situations justify its heavier weight and larger size for travelers needing versatility over minimalism. Battery life also favors the Sony, rated at around 220 shots per charge compared to the Casio’s unspecified but reportedly lower endurance.

Professional Work:
Neither camera targets professional usage scenarios. Absence of RAW, limited ISO control, lack of manual exposure modes, and basic autofocus systems rule out serious applications. For professionals, these compacts may only serve as secondary cameras for quick snapshots or casual behind-the-scenes documentation.

Build Quality: Reliability and Durability

Neither camera offers weather sealing or ruggedized construction. Both rely on plastic bodies typical of their market segment and launch period. The Sony feels marginally more robust in my handling tests, likely owed to slightly thicker casing and a more substantial grip. Both require caution in dusty or wet environments.

Connectivity, Storage, and Power

Both cameras support SD/SDHC cards with Sony expanding compatibility to SDXC and proprietary Memory Stick formats. USB 2.0 connectivity is standard but limited to simple data transfer, lacking Wi-Fi or Bluetooth common in modern devices.

Battery-wise, the Sony uses the NP-BN pack rated for roughly 220 shots, while Casio’s older NP-120 model offers less clear endurance figures but generally fewer frames per charge, an important consideration on long trips.

Performance Scores and Summary of Strengths

After extensive real-world use and benchmark-style testing, I synthesized my findings into an overall performance rating and genre-specific assessment:

The Sony consistently outperformed Casio across most categories except pure pocketability and immediacy of small size.

Sample Images from Both Cameras

Casio EX S200 front Casio EX S200 screen back Sony W690 front Sony W690 screen back

Reviewing these images side by side highlights Sony’s sharper details, richer color rendering, and better low-light handling. Casio images appear slightly softer and noisier beyond ISO 200 but retain decent daylight reproduction.

Who Should Choose Casio EX-S200?

• Enthusiasts or travelers prioritizing ultra-compact size above all else
• Users who shoot mostly in bright daylight and casual snapshot situations
• Those who want a stylish slim camera as a stepping stone before upgrading to advanced compacts
• Budget-conscious shoppers sensitive to used market pricing (often very affordable)

Who Should Choose Sony Cyber-shot W690?

• Everyday users demanding more zoom range and versatile shooting options
• Casual wildlife, macro, and portrait shooters benefiting from face detection and longer telephoto reach
• Travelers wanting balanced image quality, battery life, and zoom in a portable package
• Video hobbyists needing HD capture at 30fps

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

Choosing between the Casio EX-S200 and Sony W690 ultimately hinges on your shooting style and priorities. If you crave the thinnest, lightest camera for discreet moments and easy carry, Casio delivers a no-frills approach that still captures decent images in good light. I respect its design purity and portability, ideal for street photographers or urban travelers valuing concealment and pocketability.

However, for broader photographic versatility and better image quality, especially outside ideal conditions, the Sony W690 clearly outpaces the Casio. Its superior zoom, autofocus, stabilization, and video capabilities make it a better all-rounder for casual to enthusiast photographers. The tradeoff is modestly larger size and a bit more weight, which is reasonable for what you gain.

Neither camera suits professional workflows or demanding creative control, but both provide accessible stepping stones into digital photography with unique merits. If your budget and needs align with their feature sets, these models can still serve as effective companions in 2024 - but I recommend looking at current mid-range compacts for more advanced options if raw image quality, speed, and versatility top your list.

I hope my detailed experience with the Casio EX-S200 and Sony Cyber-shot W690 aids your decision-making process. For any questions about their specific use or performance, feel free to reach out. Happy shooting!

Disclosure: I have no financial affiliation with Casio or Sony. All assessments arise from extended hands-on testing and personal photography work to ensure objective and trustworthy guidance.