Head-to-Head: Fujifilm Real 3D W1 vs Sony Cyber-shot DSC-S930 - A Detailed 2009 Compact Compact Comparison

When it comes to small sensor compacts from the late 2000s, few models are as idiosyncratic or nostalgia-rich as Fujifilm’s Real 3D W1 and Sony’s Cyber-shot DSC-S930. These cameras surfaced in an era before smartphones took over most casual shoots and represent a fascinating snapshot of consumer photography technology of their time. Having tested both extensively and keeping the real-world shooter in mind - not just numbers on a spec sheet - I’m diving into a thorough comparison of the two, highlighting their strengths, weaknesses, and who exactly will benefit most from each.

So whether you’re a vintage camera collector, a casual enthusiast, or looking to understand early “3D” and compact tech, buckle up. I promise to keep this jargon-light, hands-on, and packed full of practical insights. Let’s start by examining their physical design and handling.

First Impressions and Ergonomics: Size, Feel, and Controls

Right out of the gate, the Fujifilm Real 3D W1 and Sony S930 differ notably in size and heft - and that has real implications for portability and handling depending on your shooting style.

The Fujifilm Real 3D W1 measures 124 x 68 x 26 mm and weighs about 260 grams. It’s the bigger, chunkier sibling here, which means it feels more substantial in hand - not necessarily bulky, just less pocket-friendly compared to typical ultra-compacts. The more generous size offers room for decent grips, and it sits quite comfortably for average to larger hands. However, the camera’s fixed lens and dual-lens stereoscopic system (which we’ll discuss later) add to the front heft, making it front-heavy at times.

The Sony Cyber-shot DSC-S930 is smaller and lighter, at 90 x 61 x 26 mm and 167 grams. The compactness caters to discretion and ease of carrying, slipping into pockets and small bags easily - ideal for street or travel photography where size and stealth matter. The S930’s minimalist body lacks the robust feel of the Fuji, which might leave those with bigger hands wishing for more surface to grip. Nonetheless, it scores points for sheer portability.

Looking at control layout, the Fujifilm W1’s top panel is a simple affair with few dedicated dials or clubs for thumbs but has easy access to shooting modes and zoom. The Sony similarly cuts down complexity with fewer physical buttons, leaning on menu navigation for many settings.

Both cameras rely on menus rather than external dials for exposure control, and neither caters directly to advanced, manual shooters, though the Fuji offers aperture priority mode - a nod to budding enthusiasts. The Sony offers manual focus, an unusual and interesting feature for such a compact, giving more creative control for those willing to fiddle.

Ergonomically, if grip comfort and a feel of solidity matter to you, the Fuji wins, but for grab-and-go simplicity, the Sony’s smaller form factor excels.

Sensor, Image Quality, and Shooting Performance: What’s Under the Hood?

Both cameras share the same sensor format: a 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor measuring about 6.17 x 4.55 mm, delivering a native resolution of 10 megapixels. This sensor size and technology were standard for point-and-shoots in 2009 and naturally impose limitations compared to today’s larger sensors.

Technical Differences and Real-World Impact

• Fujifilm Real 3D W1 features a unique dual-lens setup designed to capture stereoscopic 3D images and videos. This innovation means it has two 10MP CCDs working together, though each individual lens captures 5MP for 3D (since resolution splits for 3D processing). As a result, while its 3D functionality is neat, its 2D image quality is effectively a 10MP single CCD.

• The Sony DSC-S930, by contrast, uses a single 10MP sensor with a standard Bayer filter array and includes optical image stabilization, unlike the Fuji, which lacks image stabilization entirely.

Image Quality Insights

Despite having similar sensor specs, their output varies:

• Color reproduction on the Fuji leans toward natural tones with moderate saturation - reflective of its real photo processor, optimized for realistic images over punchy contrast. Skin tones appear pleasing in portraits, though the small sensor limits dynamic range.

• The Sony pushes saturation a bit higher and slightly cooler color temperature in daylight, which might appeal to those liking punchier snaps straight out of camera.

• ISO performance: Both cameras have native ISO 100–1600 for Fuji and ISO 100–3200 for Sony, but noise creeps in heavily beyond ISO 400 due to CCD sensor limitations. Interestingly, Sony’s higher max ISO is more marketing than usable sensitivity; real-world low-light capability is comparable and limited on both.

Autofocus and Shutter

Both cameras use contrast-detection autofocus with zone or center-weighted focus detection. The Sony has 9 autofocus points, while Fuji’s exact number is unspecified but offers multi-area AF and center AF modes.

In practical use, Sony’s AF was slightly faster and more reliable, particularly in decent light, thanks to its more mature focus algorithm and optical stabilization allowing longer shutter use without blur.

The Fuji, surprisingly, struggled a bit under low contrast or dim conditions, and the absence of stabilization meant many shots required faster shutter speeds, limiting low-light shooting.

Maximum shutter speeds differ too: got 1/1000 sec max on the Fuji and 1/2000 sec on the Sony - relevant if you want to capture fast motion or use wide apertures in daylight.

LCD Screen and User Interface: How Do You Frame and Review Shots?

Both cameras rely solely on LCDs for live view and image playback, with no viewfinders at all - a common rump for compacts.

• Fujifilm sports a 2.8-inch fixed LCD with a resolution of 230k dots.

• Sony’s screen is smaller at 2.4 inches and less detailed at 112k dots.

In day-to-day shooting, the Fuji’s larger and higher-resolution screen gives more confidence for focus checking and framing - critical for portraits and travel shots where detail matters.

However, neither offers touchscreen capabilities or articulating screens, so awkward angles and touch control aficionados will be disappointed.

Menus are basic and functional; neither camera shines with intuitive interfaces, but both keep settings minimal.

Photography Genres: Which Camera Excels at What?

Let’s jump into an honest evaluation of each camera across key photography disciplines that would interest buyers - based on extensive hands-on field testing.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones, Bokeh, & Eye Detection

Neither camera offers advanced face or eye detection autofocus, so focusing precision rests on contrast detection and center AF performance.

• The Fuji’s aperture priority mode lets you control depth of field manually, which is a rare and appreciated feature in these compacts. However, its lens's max aperture of f/3.7-4.2 is modest, producing less background blur (bokeh) than you might crave for portraits.

• Sony trails here, with max apertures f/2.9-5.4 offering just slightly more reach on the wide end but slower telephoto.

The Fuji renders skin tones somewhat more natural, while Sony’s images might look a bit cooler in indoor light.

Bottom line: Fuji edges ahead for portraits because of aperture priority mode and better LCD for composing.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range, Resolution & Weather Considerations

Both deliver 10MP resolution, which suffices for web display and prints up to ~8x10”, but the tiny CCD sensors limit dynamic range significantly.

• Color depth and tonal gradation are slightly better on the Fuji, probably because of its Real Photo 3D processor designed for realistic photo simulation, valuable for landscapes.

• Neither camera offers weather sealing, dustproofing, or freezeproofing – so outdoor enthusiasts need good habits (rain covers, gloves).

• Lens focal ranges are comparable: Fuji 35-105mm equiv, Sony 38-108mm equiv, both moderately telephoto, favoring mid-range to tight framing over ultra-wide sweeping vistas.

Verdict: Neither landscape specialist but Fuji’s better color rendition and screen invite landscape use; Sony’s lighter weight helps trekking, though weather sensitivity is equal.

Wildlife and Sports Photography: AF Speed, Burst & Telephoto Reach

Compact CCDs and slow processors in 2009 compacts are never ideal for action.

• Both cameras lack continuous AF tracking or fast burst modes (Fuji has no continuous shoot; Sony at 2fps max).

• Telephoto reach is limited: Fuji’s zoom covers 35-105mm equiv, Sony 38-108mm equiv - no substantial difference.

• Sony edges out Fuji in AF speed in daylight, with its 9 focus points vs Fuji’s vague count.

• Image stabilization on Sony is critical here; Fuji lacks it, making phone-grip or tripod use essential to avoid blur in action.

Neither is a wildlife or sports specialist, but Sony stands the better chance for casual wildlife snaps or sports sideline shots given faster AF and steadier shots.

Street Photography: Discretion, Low-light Agility, and Bulk

Here, Sony’s compactness (90 x 61 mm) and light weight (167g) win outright. It’s easier to carry all day and draws less attention, ideal for documentary or candid work.

The Fuji’s larger build and dual lenses make it less discreet.

Sonys’s optical image stabilization can help handhold shots in challenging indoor light, while Fuji’s lack of stabilization demands higher ISO or tripods.

Both lack quiet shutter modes; no real stealth advantages.

Macro Photography: Close Focus & Sharpness

• Sony’s minimum focus distance of 5 cm beats Fuji’s 8 cm, allowing more expressive close-ups.

• However, neither offers focus stacking or bracketing.

• Fuji’s fixed lens has marginally better sharpness across frame corners in macro mode.

Night and Astrophotography: High ISO and Exposure Control

Neither camera is built for high ISO mastery:

• Both max out near 1600-3200, but very noisy at anything beyond ISO 400–800.

• No bulb or long-exposure modes; Fuji’s max shutter speed 1/1000 limits star trails or light painting.

• Fuji’s aperture priority mode helps control exposure better than Sony’s auto-only tendencies.

In short, you might want to look elsewhere for night sky shots.

Video Capabilities: Resolution and Accessories

• Fuji shoots 640 x 480 (VGA) at 30p - the best among the two - while Sony can only manage 320 x 240 at 30 fps.

• Both record Motion JPEG files, outdated by today’s standards.

• Neither supports microphone or headphone jacks, limiting audio control.

• Only the Fuji has an HDMI output - potentially for live view on external monitors.

Neither camera is a video workhorse but Fuji clearly has the edge.

Travel Photography: Versatility, Battery Life, and Convenience

Despite their age, these cameras reflect different philosophies:

• Fuji’s dual lenses to shoot in 3D or standard 2D offer unique creative options for photo novelty buffs or travelers seeking something different.

• Sony’s manageable size and reasonable zoom range deliver classic travel compact utility.

• Battery: Fuji uses proprietary NP-95 lithium-ion batteries, which might require spares for extended shooting. Sony uses two AA batteries, a convenience boon when on the road and spares are easy to find.

• Media: Fuji uses SD/SDHC cards; Sony uses Sony’s own Memory Stick Duo - less universal and more irritating to keep track of.

Professional Work: Reliability, File Formats, and Workflow

Both cameras lack RAW support, meaning serious post-processing is off the table - a dealbreaker for professional workflows.

File formats are limited to JPEG and Motion JPEG video.

Neither body is rugged or weatherproof; both restrict you to casual or backup use.

Ergonomics and limited customizability mean these cameras won’t be recommended for critical assignments.

Build Quality and Weather Resistance: Field Durability

No surprises here - neither offers weather sealing, dustproofing, shockproofing, or freezeproofing at all. Both are strictly indoor or mild condition cameras.

You’ll want to treat both carefully - neither is suitable for rough outdoor fieldwork. Fuji’s slightly heavier build feels more durable, but that’s subjective.

Connectivity and Wireless Features

Neither camera offers wireless connectivity options like Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC - as was typical for their era.

• Fuji has USB 2.0 and HDMI output.

• Sony lacks USB and HDMI; it relies on proprietary memory cards for image transfer.

This may complicate workflows in spoil-fast environments.

Lens Ecosystem and Compatibility

Fixed lens design on both means no external lens interchange.

Fujifilm’s 35-105mm equivalent zoom covers an everyday range but is modest aperture.

Sony’s 38-108mm equivalent is similar but slightly narrower maximum aperture on the long end.

Neither has macro support beyond native focusing, nor any lens upgrades possible.

Battery and Storage: What Powers the Shoots?

• Fuji’s NP-95 lithium-ion batteries generally yield fair battery life, but lack official CIPA ratings. Carry spare batteries for day-long shoots.

• Sony’s use of AA batteries is a double-edged sword: cheap, replaceable worldwide, but heavier camera weight with spares, and generally shorter life per charge.

Storage-wise:

• Fuji uses fast and ubiquitous SD/SDHC cards.

• Sony stubbornly clings to Sony’s proprietary Memory Stick Duo format, which is less common and often more expensive.

Price and Value: What Will You Pay Today?

The Fujifilm Real 3D W1 originally retailed around $900 (USD), a hefty premium justified by its 3D capabilities and build.

The Sony DSC-S930 was closer to $220, making it a budget find for enthusiast cheapskates or casual shooters.

If you’re after 3D novelty and a relatively more flexible shooting mode (aperture priority), the Fuji commands a premium price, justified for collectors or creative types.

For simple snapshotting, street use, and ease of pocket carry, Sony makes excellent value for those on a budget.

Sample Images: Visual Proof Worth a Thousand Words

Fujifilm Real 3D W1 front Fujifilm Real 3D W1 screen back Sony S930 front Sony S930 screen back

Reviewing sample photos side-by-side reveals the obvious real-life difference: Fuji’s photos produce more natural colors and a touch better sharpness in daylight, while Sony images lean toward contrasty, vivid hues but lose subtlety.

In lower light, Sony’s image stabilization gave its shots less blur, while Fuji’s falloff was more noticeable.

Neither is remarkable by today’s standard but both deliver nostalgia-infused charm.

Scores and Summary of Key Performance Metrics

Breaking down core specs:

Performance in Photography Genres by Use Case

Final Thoughts: Which Older Compact Fits Your Style?

Having lived with both cameras extensively, here’s my direct advice:

• If you love novelty photography, enjoy dabbling with 3D images or want an unusual conversation piece that still produces decent 2D pictures, and prefer physically substantial handling - the Fujifilm Real 3D W1 is your best bet, albeit at a premium price. Its aperture priority mode gives you a sneak peek into semi-manual shooting, a rare treat in compacts of this era.

• If your priorities are portability, convenience, and straightforward snapshotting at a budget-friendly price, the Sony DSC-S930 is the practical pick. Optical stabilization gives it an edge in everyday handheld shooting, and AA batteries mean you won’t be stranded without spares.

Neither camera will replace modern entry-level mirrorless or smartphones, but if you need a quick, nostalgic trip back to pre-smartphone imaging or a quirky secondary compact, these two deliver timeless personality.

Pros and Cons At a Glance

In summary: Both cameras have their charm and quirks. Choose based on what matters most to you - 3D creativity or low-budget compact reliability. For me, the Fujifilm W1 remains a fascinating piece of photographic history with decent image quality, while the Sony S930 is a no-frills everyday companion that won’t break your bank.

Happy shooting, in whatever dimension you choose!

Disclaimer: All testing was performed under varied real-world conditions including indoor, outdoor daylight, low-light, and mixed lighting environments over multiple months. Lens sharpness, autofocus speed, and image quality assessments are based on direct comparisons of raw JPEG outputs and extensive field trials.