Small but Mighty: Comparing the Fujifilm FinePix Z300 and Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX66 Ultracompact Cameras

When hunting for an ultracompact camera, many photographers dread the trade-offs: tiny sensors, questionable ergonomics, and limited creative controls. Still, the lure of pocketable convenience is tough to resist. So, how do two beloved ultracompacts - the Fujifilm FinePix Z300 (2009) and the newer Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX66 (2012) - stack up side-by-side when examined through the lens of a seasoned camera tester?

Having spent over 15 years putting consumer and enthusiast cameras through their paces - from studio portraits to wildlife jaunts - I can attest that these two cameras, though similar in category, play to quite different strengths and weaknesses. Buckle up; this comparison will dig deep into their design, sensor tech, autofocus, and real-world handling to help you decide which one deserves a spot in your gear bag.

The Look and Feel: Pocketability Meets Practicality

Let’s start where it counts - how the cameras feel in your hands and pockets. Both are slim, lightweight, and stylishly designed for on-the-go shooters, but there are clear nuances.

The Fujifilm Z300 sports a rectangular slab body with a modest thickness and a minimalist design. The Sony TX66 takes sleekness seriously - it's notably thinner and lighter.

Comparing dimensions, the Z300 measures roughly 92 x 57 x 19 mm and weighs about 155 g, while the Sony is slimmer at 93 x 54 x 13 mm and a featherweight 109 g. Slimmer translates into greater pocket comfort but can sometimes lead to trade-offs in grip security.

Despite being smaller, the TX66’s magnesium alloy chassis offers a surprisingly solid hand-feel. The Z300, while a bit chunkier, boasts firmer plastic with less flex. I’ve often found myself fumbling with very slim designs unless they offer deliberate grip notches or rubberized surfaces, which neither ultracompact truly nails here - though the Z300’s slightly larger body helps.

Looking at button placement, the Z300 keeps things simple with fewer buttons, which streamlines quick shots but limits manual control - a typical ultracompact compromise. The Sony steps up with a slightly more elaborate top control layout. Notably, neither camera offers dedicated dials for aperture or shutter speed, which will be a dealbreaker for advanced users seeking creative control.

In sum, the Sony TX66 wins the portability battle outright, perfect for slipping into a skinny pocket or small purse. The Z300 feels more like a beginner-friendly sipper - easy but a little less refined ergonomically.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

In ultracompacts, the sensor is often the single most important factor determining image quality. Both cameras stick with a 1/2.3-inch sensor - fairly standard for point-and-shoots - but the devil is in the details.

The Fujifilm Z300 features a 10MP CCD sensor, while the Sony TX66 boasts a much higher resolution 18MP BSI-CMOS sensor. The CCD in the Z300 was common a decade ago but is dated compared to Sony’s back-illuminated CMOS technology, which boosts low-light sensitivity and reduces noise.

What really impressed me with the TX66 is how its BSI-CMOS sensor allows for a native ISO range starting at 80, extending up to an impressive 12800. This gives it a substantial edge for shooting in low light (think moody cafés or dim interiors), where the Z300 caps at ISO 1600 and produces notably more noise above ISO 400.

Image sharpness and dynamic range also lean in Sony's favor, with noticeably cleaner shadow details and richer tonal gradations without resorting to harsh digital tweaks. Fujifilm’s 10MP sensor yields decent images at base ISO with respectable colors, but in shadows and highlights, it clips earlier - meaning less room to recover blown-out skies or murky shadows in post-processing.

Both cameras have an anti-aliasing filter, which helps reduce moiré but slightly softens microdetail. Sony’s higher resolution helps maintain punch despite that softness.

For everyday snapshot users, the Z300’s output is adequate, especially in bright conditions. But for photography enthusiasts craving richer, more nuanced files for editing or larger prints, the TX66’s sensor setup is a clear winner.

Viewing and Interface: Making Sense of the Screen

Without viewfinders, ultracompacts rely heavily on their rear LCD for framing and reviewing images. Here again, Sony flexes some muscle.

The Fujifilm's fixed 3-inch LCD is basic - with just 230k dots of resolution, it lacks clarity under bright sunlight, and colors appear somewhat muted. By contrast, Sony’s TX66 sports a 3.3-inch XtraFine TruBlack OLED display boasting a sharp 1230k-dot resolution and superior contrast performance. That means rich blacks, vibrant colors, and easier manual framing - even outdoors.

Importantly, both have touchscreens (a rarity for ultracompacts of their era), but the Sony’s touchscreen is noticeably more responsive and accurate. I found the TX66's interface more intuitive for setting focus points, reviewing images, and toggling settings without digging through obscure menus.

The Z300 sticks to a simplistic menu system - suitable for casual shooters but frustrating if you want to fine-tune aspects like white balance or ISO.

Lens and Zoom: Reach and Clarity in One Package?

Lenses often get short shrift in ultracompacts, but focal length, aperture, and image stabilization all factor heavily into real-life usability.

The Fujifilm Z300 comes with a fixed 36-180mm (35mm equivalent) f/3.9-6.4 lens - offering a moderate 5x zoom range that starts with a telephoto sweet spot but doesn’t go ultra-wide.

The Sony TX66 sports a 26-130mm f/3.5-4.8 lens, a slightly wider zoom range strategically balancing wide-angle capability (for landscapes and tight street scenes) with decent tele reach.

While both lenses employ optical zoom, maximum apertures are on the slower side - especially at the telephoto ends - limiting low-light and depth-of-field control.

Image stabilization is another battlefield.

The Fujifilm uses sensor-shift stabilization, which is effective but limited by its decade-old tech. The Sony offers optical image stabilization, typically more efficient, especially in longer focal lengths and video. During handheld tests, Sony’s stabilization noticeably reduced blurring during slow shutter speeds, making it the better companion for casual travel or low-light scenarios involving motion.

The Sony's macro focus distance is an impressive 1 cm, compared to 9 cm on the Fujifilm, enabling more extreme close-ups of flowers, insects, or everyday details. This is a consideration if you want to dabble in macro photography with minimal gear.

Autofocus, Shooting Speed, and Performance: Trusting the Eye

In ultracompacts, autofocus speed and accuracy can make or break your shooting experience, especially for active scenes or fleeting moments.

The Fujifilm Z300 relies on contrast-detection autofocus only, which is standard but tends to be slower and may hunt in low contrast or dim lighting. There’s no continuous autofocus or face detection - features photographers now expect even on pocket cameras.

Sony TX66, while also contrast-detection based, adds face detection and even some novice-level tracking, which helps lock onto faces and keep them sharp during slight subject movement. It cleverly supports selective and center autofocus areas and features touch AF, letting you tap the screen to decide where to focus.

Shooting rates highlight big differences: Fujifilm manages just a 1 fps continuous burst - essentially single shots - whereas the Sony can reach 10 fps, a surprisingly spry rate for such a tiny package. While buffer depth is limited, the extra frames allow capturing fast action sequences better, beneficial for kids, pets, or street photography.

Shutter speeds differ as well: Fujifilm’s maximum is 1/1000 sec; Sony goes faster to 1/4000 sec, helping freeze fast motion or shoot wide-open in bright light without ND filters.

Video and Connectivity: Basic or Better?

Video capabilities are often an afterthought in ultracompacts but can be a nice bonus.

The Fujifilm records basic 640x480 VGA at 30fps, in Motion JPEG format - a relic of the era, producing bulky files and limited quality. Sound is mono, with no mic or headphone ports.

The Sony TX66 leaps forward to Full HD 1920x1080@60fps video in MPEG-4 and AVCHD formats, offering decent quality for casual vlogging or memories. No external audio support here either, but its built-in microphone performs adequately for typical use.

Connectivity-wise, neither camera offers Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or GPS - understandable given their release dates - but the Sony includes HDMI output, allowing direct playback on HDTVs, an appreciated feature missing on the Fujifilm.

Battery and Storage: Staying Powered and Ready

Ultracompacts usually don’t impress with battery endurance but consider here too.

The Sony TX66 uses a proprietary NP-BN battery rated for approximately 250 shots per charge - respectable but not exceptional. The Fujifilm’s battery life isn’t officially rated but uses the NP-45 model, typically shorter-lasting than modern packs.

Storage-wise, the Fujifilm supports SD/SDHC cards and offers internal memory, a nice fallback. The Sony supports Memory Stick Duo/Pro Duo and microSD/microSDHC cards but no internal memory. In my testing, the Sony’s microSD compatibility is convenient, as these cards are common and versatile.

Putting It All Together: Real-World Photography Use Cases

So, with all these specs on paper and experience, how do these cameras perform across photography genres? Let’s break it down.

Portrait Photography

If smooth skin tones, sharp eyes, and creamy bokeh top your wish list, neither camera can produce DSLR-level shallow depth of field - those tiny sensors and slow apertures struggle to isolate subjects.

Sony TX66’s face-detection AF and superior sensor resolution help capture crisp detailed portraits, especially in good light. Its better low-light sensitivity means more flattering colors without flash.

The Fujifilm Z300, lacking face detection, risks focus misses and softer results. Plus, its slower lens hampers low-light work. No real winner; the Sony edges ahead for portrait enthusiasts seeking sharpness and ease.

Landscape Photography

Here resolution and dynamic range are paramount.

The Sony’s 18MP CMOS sensor delivers files with more detail and latitude to recover shadows and highlights - perfect for sweeping vistas.

Neither are weather-sealed, so treat as casual landscape tools.

Fujifilm's 10MP CCD delivers passable results in daylight but limited shadow detail and a narrower ISO window.

The wider 26mm equivalent wide angle on Sony beats the Fujifilm’s 36mm start, giving better framing flexibility for landscapes.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

These genres demand fast autofocus, high burst rates, and good reach.

At 5x zoom, both cameras offer similar telephoto reach, but Sony’s 10 fps burst and autofocus tracking capabilities make it the better pick for those fleeting moments - although ultracompacts in general struggle here.

Fujifilm’s single fps rate and no tracking render it unsuitable for action.

Street and Travel Photography

Weight, size, and discretion are key.

Sony TX66’s slender profile and quiet autofocus make it excellent for stealthy street shooting.

Better low-light sensitivity means less need to bump ISO and risk noise on city nights.

The Fujifilm is slightly thicker and heavier but simpler controls appeal to casual vacationers wanting point-and-shoot ease.

Macro Photography

Sony’s exceptional 1cm macro focus distance invites creative close-ups unobtainable with the Fujifilm’s 9 cm.

Add in superior sensor resolution and you get surprisingly detailed macro snaps from the TX66.

Night and Astro Photography

Neither camera is suited for serious astro work due to sensor size and lack of manual exposure modes.

But Sony’s higher max ISO extends usability indoors or at parties.

Video Use

Sony’s full HD 60fps video capability is miles ahead of Fujifilm’s VGA clips.

No external mic means audio is basic but good enough for informal use.

Professional Work and Workflow

Neither of these ultracompacts supports RAW capture - a dealbreaker for pro shooters needing maximum post-processing freedom.

Sony’s files, however, are higher resolution and more versatile for casual pro usage.

Technical Highlights and Build Quality Summary

• Both lack weather sealing - use carefully outdoors.
• Build quality: Sony’s metal body feels premium despite reduced weight.
• Fujifilm uses older CCD sensor vs. Sony’s modern BSI-CMOS.
• Sony offers superior screen technology and richer menus.
• Fujifilm lacks manual focus or exposure controls; Sony offers limited manual focus.
• Battery life favors Sony but neither excels.
• Both have only internal flashes; no hot shoe or external flash support.

Value Proposition and Pricing

The Fujifilm FinePix Z300, largely discontinued and found secondhand, generally sells for low prices - an entry-level budget option.

The Sony TX66, though older in years, typically commands prices around $350 new, reflecting its higher tech level and robustness.

Considering performance-to-price, the Sony offers much more bang for your buck - especially for anyone seeking serious image quality or creative flexibility. The Fujifilm suits casual shooters on a strict budget or those wanting a really simple camera to snap snapshots without fuss.

Summary Ratings and Genre Scores

Let’s bring it all together with an honest scoring glance:

And breaking down by photography type:

Showcasing What They Can Do: Sample Images

Fujifilm Z300 front Fujifilm Z300 screen back Sony TX66 front Sony TX66 screen back

Left side: Sony TX66 shots show richer details, vibrant colors, and sharper macros; right side: Fujifilm Z300 images, a bit softer, with noisier shadows.

Final Thoughts: Picking Your Ultracompact Sidekick

Choosing between the Fujifilm FinePix Z300 and Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX66 ultimately hinges on what you want from an ultracompact camera:

• For casual, simple photography with basic needs and minimal fiddling, especially on a shoestring budget, the Fujifilm Z300 offers decent daylight snaps and ease of use.

• However, if you want a punchier sensor, sharper images, more control over focus, superior LCD, strong video, and better low-light performance, the Sony TX66 is hands-down the more versatile and capable little powerhouse in this pair.

While neither camera replaces a mirrorless or DSLR, the Sony TX66's thoughtful blend of size, technology, and performance makes it an excellent choice for travel, street, and everyday photography enthusiasts who demand more than the bare necessities.

In the end, I’ve found the TX66 easier to recommend for serious enthusiasts wanting compact reliability without sacrificing image quality or speed.

My Testing Experience: Hands-on Workflow Insights

During my weeks of practical testing, I relied on natural lighting indoors, challenging street scenes at dusk, macro shots of garden flora, and handheld video clips on city walkabouts. I used a sturdy tripod for landscape and low-light stills to compare noise and dynamic range. Battery metrics came from consistent cycles with flash used liberally.

The Sony’s responsiveness and interface agility made it a joy to shoot with, inspiring me to capture moments I might have otherwise skipped. The Fujifilm’s simplicity sometimes translated to frustration in focus delays and middling image quality, especially under tricky light.

Closing Recommendation

If you crave a true compact nimble enough for spontaneous photography but with enough technical merit to expand your creative horizons, the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX66 is my pick. For those who want an uncomplicated, budget-friendly snap-happy companion to document memories without fuss, the Fujifilm FinePix Z300 will do just fine - especially if found at a bargain.

Whichever you choose, understanding their limitations and strengths ensures you’ll end up with a camera that truly fits your shooting style and expectations.

Happy shooting!