Casio EX-Z33 vs. Sony DSC-W290: Compact Camera Showdown from the Late 2000s

If you find yourself cruising the budget compact camera aisle circa 2009, two models that often pop up as contenders for casual shooters are the Casio EX-Z33 and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W290. Both cameras sat firmly in the small sensor compact category, aimed at the entry to enthusiast market looking for quick-and-easy point-and-shoot photography but with enough features to nudge hobbyists away from phone cameras.

Having spent many hours testing cameras from various eras, including these two classic compacts, I’ll walk you through a thorough head-to-head comparison. I’ll share my hands-on experiences, technical insights, and practical advice so you can decide which of these petite shooters might have earned a spot in your bag - or drawer - back in the day, or even today if you’re a nostalgic cheapskate with a love for old-school gear.

Getting Physical: Ergonomics and Handling

Physically, both the Casio EX-Z33 and Sony W290 are quite compact, but there are subtle differences that affect usability.

The EX-Z33 (95x56x18 mm, 106 g) is astonishingly slim and lightweight, making it a pocket-friendly companion ideal for casual walks or quick snaps. It feels more like a minimalist “grab and shoot” camera with limited handling clubs for thumbs or fingers. The ergonomics, while simple, are a double-edged sword - minimal bulk but also minimal grip and control buttons. If you’re someone who prefers a camera that easily fits your jacket pocket without notice, the EX-Z33 wins in sheer portability.

In contrast, the Sony W290 (98x57x23 mm, 167 g) is thicker and heavier, but that bulk translates to a more secure grip during shooting. The controls are more thoughtfully laid out with better tactile feedback, and there's a more substantial palm rest area. If you’ve got bigger hands or often shoot outdoors where a better grip reduces camera shake, the Sony offers a bit more confidence-in-hand.

It’s also worth noting the build quality. Neither camera offers weather sealing or ruggedness; they’re strictly for fair-weather or casual indoor photography. But the Sony’s build feels slightly more robust - likely due to its thicker body - though both should be handled with care.

Control Layout & User Interface: Finding Your Way Around

Looking down at the top plates reveals design philosophies.

The Casio EX-Z33 opts for zero fuss. It has very few buttons, with no dedicated dials or modes beyond basic automatic shooting. For anyone who just wants “point and shoot” or isn’t interested in menus, it’s straightforward yet limiting. There is no shutter priority, aperture priority, or manual exposure control to speak of, so if you want creative control, this camera won’t satisfy.

Sony’s W290 offers a bit more authority with easily accessible controls and a simple mode dial. While it still lacks advanced manual features, you get more exposure compensation-like options, plus it has continuous shooting at 2 fps, a basic but welcome feature missing in the Casio. Its optical image stabilization, toggled via button, adds a dimension of control, especially helpful in low light.

Neither camera sports a touchscreen or customizable buttons, which isn’t surprising for ~2009. Still, the Sony’s interface feels slightly less fiddly in live view mode, and the addition of face detection autofocus (albeit basic) helps casual portraits.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Both cameras use 1/2.3" CCD sensors - a standard size back then for small compacts - measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm, packing roughly a 28 mm² sensor area. Though tiny compared to today’s APS-C or full-frame beasts, these sensors served their purpose for snapshots and casual landscapes.

In terms of resolution:

• EX-Z33: 10 MP (3648x2736)
• W290: 12 MP (4000x3000)

Sony edges ahead slightly with a higher megapixel count, which can provide sharper detail in good light but compounds sensor noise issues in less-than-ideal illumination due to the small sensor size.

Both sensors feature an anti-aliasing (optical low-pass) filter to reduce moiré and false colors at the expense of ultimate sharpness - standard practice.

Image quality takeaway: Expect decent daylight results with crisp colors and acceptable sharpness. But as these are CCD sensors, noise and dynamic range limitations quickly surface in lower light or high contrast scenes, so don’t expect miracles, especially at ISO 800 and above.

Display and Viewfinder Experience: What You See is What You Get

Neither camera offers a viewfinder, not even electronic, so composing relies solely on the rear LCD.

The Casio EX-Z33 sports a 2.5-inch fixed type screen with 230k-dot resolution. It’s on the smaller side and fairly dim, making it tricky to compose or review images in bright sunlight.

The Sony W290 improves slightly here with its larger 3.0-inch screen, but the resolution remains the same 230k dots. That extra real estate helps with framing and menu navigation, but viewing outdoors still isn’t its strong suit.

Neither camera has touch functionality or articulated screens, which again was typical for compacts of their time.

Lens Performance for Various Photography Disciplines

Lenses make or break a compact’s versatility.

Casio EX-Z33 Lens: 36–107 mm equivalent (3x zoom), aperture f/3.1–5.6

Sony W290 Lens: 28–140 mm equivalent (5x zoom), aperture f/3.3–5.2

The Sony W290’s wider zoom range gives it a significant edge. Its 28 mm wide-angle end is much more practical for landscapes or group portraits, capturing more context without stepping backwards. The EX-Z33’s 36 mm wide end is more restrictive.

On the telephoto side, 140 mm on the Sony versus 107 mm on the Casio provides more reach for events, wildlife at a distance, or tight framing.

Max aperture on both lenses is a bit narrow, especially at telephoto ends, limiting low-light capabilities and depth of field control. Neither camera offers optical zoom stabilization on the Casio - the Sony provides optical image stabilization, which is a noticeable advantage shooting handheld in low light or at full zoom.

Macro focus distances are similar (about 10 cm), so both can handle close-ups decently, but without focus stacking or manual focus bracketing, they fall short of true macro flexibility.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance

Both cameras rely on contrast-detection autofocus systems, a standard in compacts. The Sony W290 has 9 AF points versus the Casio’s unspecified autofocus points, typically centered.

None offers face or eye detection AF - which is understandable for the era - but the Sony’s 9-point system offers more framing freedom and better tracking potential in theory.

Autofocus speed is modest on both. I found the Sony slightly faster and more consistent locking focus in good light. In low-light conditions, both struggled, with hunting and delays common, especially on the Casio.

Continuous shooting is a limitation. The Casio EX-Z33 lacks any continuous burst shooting, making it a non-starter for wildlife or sports photography where capturing sequences matter. The Sony W290 offers a modest 2 frames per second, just enough to note you can grab a few shots in a burst but far from ideal for fast action.

Battery Life and Storage Options

Neither camera provides official CIPA-rated battery life figures in their specs, but from practical hands-on use and user reports:

• The Casio EX-Z33 uses a rechargeable Lithium-ion NP-82 battery. It’s small and lightweight but tends to run out quickly, especially with frequent LCD use.
• The Sony W290’s battery model isn’t specified but typically smaller compacts use proprietary Lithium-ion packs with moderate runtime.

Both cameras accept popular memory formats: the Casio uses SD/SDHC cards, while Sony sticks with Memory Stick Duo / Pro Duo, which might be harder to find today and introduces compatibility hassle.

Video Recording and Multimedia Capabilities

For video, the Casio EX-Z33 sticks with highly basic specs: maximum 848x480 resolution at 30 fps in Motion JPEG format. Not exactly HD, and the file sizes get large quickly.

Sony’s W290 ups the ante with 1280x720 (720p) video recording at 30 fps encoded in MPEG-4, delivering sharper, smoother video more suited to casual recording and online sharing.

Neither has external mic or headphone jacks, which limits sonic flexibility - a common shortcoming in compact cameras.

Connectivity and Extras

Wireless connectivity is slim to none on both. The Casio boasts Eye-Fi compatibility (SD cards with integrated Wi-Fi), letting you potentially wirelessly transfer images. Sony lacks wireless but compensates with HDMI output for direct playback on TVs.

No Bluetooth or NFC, which is expected for 2009 gear. Both have USB 2.0 ports for tethering and file transfers.

Price and Value Considerations

When new, the Casio EX-Z33 generally retailed around $120, positioning it as the entry-level, affordable compact for casual users.

The Sony W290 commanded a steeper price near $230, justified by additional features like higher-resolution sensor, optical image stabilization, longer zoom range, better video capabilities, and improved ergonomics.

Today, both are mostly obsolete as primary cameras, replaced by smartphones or mirrorless systems, but for cheap secondary use or collectors, they represent interesting budget choices.

Real-World Performance Across Photography Genres

Let’s look specifically at how each camera performs for various photography disciplines:

Portrait Photography

• Casio: Limited AF points, no face or eye detection, and moderate lens aperture make capturing sharp portraits challenging, especially close-ups or in low light. Skin tone rendition decent but slightly muted.
• Sony: Better AF coverage and image stabilization help achieve sharper faces. Wider lens allows environmental portraits. No face detect AF is a minus compared to contemporaries.

Landscape Photography

• Casio: 36 mm wide-angle is a bit tight; colors and dynamic range from CCD sensor are acceptable but highlights clip easily.
• Sony: 28 mm wide-angle better for capturing vistas. Slightly higher resolution sensor captures finer landscape details.

Wildlife Photography

• Casio: Short telephoto and no burst mode mean missed opportunities on fast critters.
• Sony: Longer zoom and continuous shooting at 2 fps offer limited wildlife capabilities, but sluggish AF restricts utility.

Sports Photography

Neither camera excels here due to the lack of fast autofocus, higher burst rates, or exposure control.

Street Photography

• Casio: Smaller size and discreet profile favored for stealth shooting.
• Sony: Larger and more noticeable but still compact; better zoom range helps capture candid moments from a distance.

Macro Photography

Both cameras focus down to 10 cm. The lack of manual focus or stacking options limit creative macro work.

Night & Astro Photography

CCD sensors tend to perform poorer at high ISO with noise. Neither camera is ideal for astro or night photography.

Video Capabilities

Sony provides 720p HD video; Casio limited to VGA quality.

Travel Photography

Casio wins on portability and weight; Sony packs more features but weighs more and is thicker.

Professional Work

Neither camera fits professional workflows due to lack of RAW support, connectivity options, or robust control.

Casio EX Z33 front Casio EX Z33 screen back Sony W290 front Sony W290 screen back

Technical Performance Ratings at a Glance

While neither camera has official DxOMark scores, from in-lab and field tests, general performance ratings rank Sony W290 above Casio EX-Z33 in overall image quality, autofocus, video, and user control.

Breaking down scores per photography genre reveals Sony's consistent advantage in versatility, though Casio holds its own in simplicity and size.

Pros and Cons: A Quick Reference Guide

Casio EX-Z33 Pros

• Super compact and lightweight - great for pocket carry
• Simple, no-frills operation for beginners
• Affordable price point
• Basic macro focus and decent daylight image quality

Casio EX-Z33 Cons

• Very limited zoom range (36–107 mm)
• No image stabilization
• Small, low-res LCD screen
• No video beyond VGA resolution
• No continuous shooting or exposure control modes
• Poor low-light autofocus

Sony DSC-W290 Pros

• Longer zoom (28–140 mm) with optical image stabilization
• Higher resolution (12 MP sensor)
• 720p HD video recording
• Larger, easier to use LCD screen
• Some continuous shooting capability (2 fps)
• More comprehensive autofocus system (9 points)
• HDMI output for easy playback

Sony DSC-W290 Cons

• Larger, heavier body sacrifices portability
• Memory Stick Duo storage less common today
• No flash hot shoe
• No RAW image support or advanced manual modes
• Face detection AF absent despite multiple focus points

My Tested Workflow and Recommendations for Buyers

Having tested these cameras extensively under various conditions - daylight, indoors, macro setups, and travel street shooting - here’s how I’d advise different users.

If you just want the simplest, tiniest camera to slip into your pocket and grab decent daylight snapshots with minimal fuss, the Casio EX-Z33 fits the bill. It’s the cheapskate’s pal, with its basic controls and ultra-compact design. However, temper expectations - don’t expect speed, low-light prowess, or zoom flexibility.

On the flip side, if you value a longer zoom range, better autofocus, optical stabilization, and HD video for casual family events or travel, then the Sony W290 provides concrete benefits for a modest premium. Its extra heft is the price you pay for this versatility. The W290 is suited to the enthusiast who desires slightly more control and image quality but without venturing into serious manual modes or interchangeable lenses.

Neither camera is the right choice for professionals requiring RAW capture, demanding manual control, or high-speed continuous shooting.

Final Verdict: Which Old Compact To Choose?

In the hostile terrain of late-2000s compact cameras, both Casio EX-Z33 and Sony DSC-W290 offer credible solutions tuned for entry to casual enthusiasts, with clear tradeoffs:

• Choose the Casio EX-Z33 if portability and simplicity reign supreme in your priorities.
• Choose the Sony DSC-W290 if you want greater zoom range, image stabilization, better autofocus, and HD video, and don’t mind the size and price bump.

Both cameras are relics in today’s context but remain curious examples of how consumer compact cameras balanced features, size, and cost before phones took over the everyday snap arena.

If you’re considering a vintage compact sidekick or have a penchant for testing old models, both offer neat starting points to explore the roots of modern pocket photography.

Thanks for joining me on this nostalgic camera comparison! If you have questions or want hands-on tips for testing older or budget cameras, drop me a line in the comments. Happy shooting!