Nikon Coolpix A900 vs Sony Cyber-shot WX500: The Ultimate Small-Sensor Superzoom Showdown

When diving into the realm of small-sensor superzoom compact cameras, two names tend to surface repeatedly around the mid-2010s era: the Nikon Coolpix A900 and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX500. Both pack impressive zoom ranges, robust feature sets, and fit comfortably into a jacket pocket - making them tempting choices for travel buffs, casual enthusiasts, and budget-conscious shooters craving versatility without the bulk.

Having put both the Nikon A900 and Sony WX500 through their paces in various conditions, I’m here to help you scroll past all the specs-table noise and get straight to what these cameras really bring to the table - and, importantly, which might suit your photography style best. So, buckle up for a comprehensive walk-through spanning everything from sensor tech to real-world handling, plus snapshots, video chops, and genre-specific performance insights.

Size Matters - Or Does It? Handling and Ergonomics

Let's start where you’ll physically interact the most: the cameras’ bodies.

The Nikon A900 clocks in at 113 x 67 x 40 mm and weighs about 289 grams, whereas Sony's WX500 is slightly more compact at 102 x 58 x 36 mm, tipping the scales at 236 grams. On paper, that’s a modest difference - but when shooting street photography or traveling light, those extra 53 grams and few millimeters can feel meaningful.

The A900 has a slightly chunkier grip area which gives more confident handling - less worrying about accidental slips when nudging zoom or shutter buttons. The Sony tends to feel more pocketable but a tad more delicate, especially to photographers with bigger hands. I’ve found the Sony’s compactness great for quick snaps on city walks, while the Nikon’s heft inspires steadier handheld shots during longer sessions.

The top view also reveals distinct philosophies: Nikon places the zoom rocker and shutter button close together for intuitive one-handed operation. Sony, meanwhile, sports a control ring around the lens (not programmable, unfortunately), plus an exposure compensation dial that answers well to creative adjustments on the fly.

Neither offers a viewfinder - oddly habitual for compact superzooms - and instead rely on rear LCDs. On the insulation front? Sadly, neither boasts robust weather sealing. Both are best treated delicately and shielded from extreme conditions.

Display Duel: The Windows to Your Creativity

Given the absence of viewfinders, the LCD screen becomes the window through which all composition, playback, and menu navigation occur.

Both pack a 3-inch tilting LCD with 921k dots resolution, which is surprisingly crisp and bright for this class. The tilt mechanism differs slightly in articulation, with the Nikon tilting up and down more generously - handy for awkward shooting angles such as overhead crowd shots or low-ground macro. Sony’s screen tilts up for selfies (though neither is marketed as “selfie-friendly” per se), but a bit less versatile overall.

Neither features touchscreen control, which is a small usability sore point for those accustomed to modern smartphone-style interfaces. Menus are navigated via physical buttons and dials - responsive but requiring some menu diving for less-frequent users.

Sensor Tech and Image Quality: It’s Not All About Megapixels

Now, the heart of the matter: image quality. Both employ 1/2.3-inch BSI-CMOS sensors - the standard for compact superzooms - with very similar sensor sizes (6.17 x 4.55mm) and areas (~28 mm²), so they’re playing on roughly equal ground here.

• Nikon A900 offers 20MP resolution
• Sony WX500 uses an 18MP sensor

On paper, marginally more megapixels favor the Nikon, but in reality that difference is modest and often indistinguishable unless blown up very large. Sony’s strength lies a bit deeper - in their image processor, the BIONZ X, which employs savvy noise reduction and detail preservation algorithms that keep images looking clean, even up to ISO 1600 and sometimes 3200.

While Nikon’s max native ISO caps at 3200, Sony extends to 12800 (though pushing into such high ISO on a small sensor often results in mushy, unusable noise). When shooting in low light, the Sony WX500 clearly holds an edge in retaining detail without excessive grain.

Dynamic range is limited by sensor size on both, so bright highlights can clip quickly and shadow recovery is constrained. For landscapes aiming to capture both sky details and shaded foregrounds, consider exposure bracketing or post-processing HDR.

Zoom and Lens Performance: How Far Can You Go?

Nikon A900 front Nikon A900 screen back Sony WX500 front Sony WX500 screen back

• Nikon A900: 24-840mm equivalent (35x zoom), aperture f/3.4-6.9
• Sony WX500: 24-720mm equivalent (30x zoom), aperture f/3.5-6.4

These are monster zoom ranges, packing nearly all you’d want from a pocketable camera - from wide landscapes to distant wildlife - without burdening you with interchangeable lenses. But that convenience comes with optical trade-offs.

The Nikon’s longer reach (an effective 120mm extra at the telephoto end) means a leg up for wildlife or surveillance-style shots, albeit at the cost of narrower apertures (remember f/6.9 is dim at the long end - so you’ll need steady hands or stabilization).

I subjected both to real-world tests and found the Nikon's telephoto to deliver slightly softer results at full zoom compared to Sony’s WX500. Sony’s optical construction renders edges with more clarity, and less chromatic aberration on longer focal lengths.

Macro focus distance is interesting too: Nikon manages an impressive 1cm minimum focus at wide angle, which is surprisingly close for a superzoom compact, allowing fascinating extreme close-ups. Sony’s 5cm minimum isn’t shabby either but can’t quite deliver the needle-sharp intimate detail for tiny subjects.

Autofocus, Speed, and Burst Shooting: Catching the Action

When speed met precision during my testing, Sony showed its mettle:

• Nikon A900: 7 fps burst mode
• Sony WX500: 10 fps burst mode

Though 10 frames per second in a compact is not something to write home about for sports pros, it’s respectable for this category. Paired with effectively implemented continuous autofocus tracking - both cameras utilize contrast-detection AF but no phase detection - Sony edges ahead in tracking fast moving objects.

Both resolved to face detection autofocus (great for events and casual portraits), but neither offers specialized animal eye detection that newer compacts have. So wildlife photographers who crave pinpoint animal portraiture should temper their expectations.

Portrait Game: Skin Tones, Eye Detection and Bokeh

Neither camera sports large sensors or wide maximum apertures to deliver creamy bokeh. The Nikon’s f/3.4 at the wide end is a little better for background blur than Sony’s f/3.5, but at telephoto ends both struggle to generate shallow depth-of-field due to physical limitations of sensor size and optics.

Skin tones rendered by both cameras are quite accurate and can be tweaked with custom white balance settings. Nikon provides several scene modes and some color profiles, while Sony delivers slightly more natural colors out of the box. Face detection, impressive for their vintage, helps autofocus locks, though no eye-tracking autofocus exists, which today’s mirrorless cameras offer readily.

If you want dreamy portrait images with separation, these superzooms require creative composition or post-processing help - don’t expect DSLR-grade portraits here.

Landscape and Outdoor Capture: Dynamic Range and Durability

Neither camera dazzles with weather sealing, so outdoor photographers must be cautious in inclement weather.

Dynamic range, as earlier mentioned, is similarly limited, but the Nikon’s slightly higher resolution edges out when you want to crop or print large landscapes.

Image stabilization is present in both (optical), and although effective for steady handheld landscape compositions, tripods are recommended for the best results, especially in low-light golden hour conditions.

Wildlife and Sports Photography: Can They Keep Up?

Both models will serve casual wildlife photographers due to their extensive zooms and respectable AF systems, but for serious professionals or prosumers, they’re limited.

The Nikon’s 7 fps vs Sony’s 10 fps burst rate is notable, but the lack of phase-detection AF or enhanced animal eye AF diminishes tracking ability on rapid movements. Neither camera has particularly fast shutter speeds to freeze extreme action at higher-than-average shutter speeds (max of 1/4000s Nikon, 1/2000s Sony).

The Sony’s better autofocus tracking and faster shooting speed make it the preferable choice for casual sports or wildlife snapshots, but many would eventually outgrow these when seeking professional performance.

Street and Travel Photography: Discretion Meets Versatility

Here’s where these cameras shine: compact, inconspicuous, and highly versatile.

The Sony WX500’s smaller footprint and lighter weight give it an edge for street photographers desiring to blend in and wander light. The excellent zoom range lets you capture candid scenes from varying distances without changing position.

The Nikon’s sturdier grip helps for longer travel days, reducing hand fatigue during extended shoots. Battery life is a bit better on the Sony (360 vs 300 shots per charge), which can mean fewer worries when wandering remote locations without charging options.

Storage-wise, both support SD cards, but the Sony also dabbles with Memory Stick Duo (a less critical but niche advantage).

Macro Photography: Precision and Magnification

The Nikon A900’s 1cm macro focus distance stands out and delivers genuinely impressive close-ups, capturing fine textures and tiny insects with sharp detail.

The Sony’s 5cm minimum focus distance is typical but less remarkable, meaning you'll have to settle for a bit more working distance and slightly less intimate framing.

Neither camera supports focus bracketing or stacking - a shame for macro aficionados - but their optical stabilization helps reduce jiggle at close range.

Night and Astro: High ISO and Exposure Tricks

Both struggle with the typical constraints of small sensors in low light.

Sony WX500 extends to ISO 12800 but expect heavy grain at these settings; Nikon’s ISO tops at 3200, which in practice yields cleaner, more usable images.

Neither offers silent electronic shutters or bulb-mode exposure for ultra-long astro shots, but Nikon provides min shutter speeds as slow as eight seconds, helpful for moderate night scenes.

Time-lapse capability exists on the Nikon but not Sony - handy for star trail enthusiasts or creative long-exposure sequences.

Video: Not Film School, But Capable

• Nikon A900: 4K UHD video (3840 x 2160) at 30p/25p; formats: MPEG-4, H.264
• Sony WX500: Full HD (1920 x 1080) at 60p, 60i, 30p, 24p; formats: AVCHD, XAVC-S

Here the Nikon A900 flexes superior video muscle with native 4K support - remarkable in a compact from 2016 - though without microphone or headphone jacks, sound recording options are limited.

Sony caps at Full HD, but offers XAVC S codec for efficient compression and decent quality. Neither camera features in-body stabilization tailored for video, but optical IS compensates somewhat.

Neither supports 4K photo modes or timecodes, placing them behind modern hybrid models.

Professional Reliability and Workflow Integration

Both cameras target casual to enthusiast users, and lack RAW support, which can frustrate professionals or serious hobbyists keen on post-processing flexibility.

File transfer options include USB 2.0 (slow by today’s standards) and built-in wireless connectivity - Bluetooth and NFC on Nikon, NFC on Sony only.

None include GPS built-in, which may be a downside for travel photographers tracking geotag info directly.

Battery types differ: Nikon uses EN-EL12 packs (not widely shared by other Nikon models), Sony’s NP-BX1 packs are compatible across several Sony compacts - helpful if you own multiple devices.

Price and Value: Stretching Your Dollars

• Nikon A900: Approx. $400
• Sony WX500: Approx. $350

The Sony WX500 offers slightly better value for budget-conscious buyers due to its lower price, longer battery life, better burst shooting speed, and more flexible video options in a smaller package. The Nikon demands a small premium for the extra zoom reach, 4K video, and superior macro focusing.

Performance Overview: The Bottom Line

Measured across image quality, autofocus, handling, features, and video, both cameras rank similarly, with Sony nudging forward in autofocusing speed and battery life, and Nikon shining with zoom range and 4K video.

Best Cameras for Your Favorite Photography Genres

Let’s map strengths to specialties:

• Portrait: Nikon’s slightly higher resolution aids cropping. Neither offers advanced eye-AF; both capable of decent skin tones.
• Landscape: Nikon edges on resolution; both require careful exposure management.
• Wildlife: Nikon’s longer zoom but Sony’s better AF speed - Sony slightly better overall.
• Sports: Sony leads with 10 fps burst and superior tracking.
• Street: Sony’s compact size and stealthier profile ideal.
• Macro: Nikon’s 1cm close focusing dominates here.
• Night/Astro: Neither excels, but Nikon’s longer shutter speed and time-lapse provide versatility.
• Video: Nikon’s 4K gives it a clear lead.
• Travel: Sony’s portability and battery life favor it.
• Professional Work: Neither ideal due to lack of RAW and limited manual controls.

My Final Take

Both the Nikon Coolpix A900 and Sony Cyber-shot WX500 carve niches as excellent all-rounders in the small-sensor superzoom compact segment. Picking between them depends heavily on your priorities:

• If zoom reach, 4K video, and macro shooting excite you, and size is less critical, the Nikon A900 is a smart pick.
• If you prefer faster action capture, longer battery life, a lighter footprint, and superior low-light shooting, the Sony WX500 delivers greater versatility for everyday and travel shooting.

Neither will replace a professional DSLR or mirrorless system for demanding photography or advanced workflows - but for enthusiasts wanting grab-and-go convenience with impressive telephoto reach, both are worthy companions.

I hope this deep dive helps you see past the marketing brochures, and understand real-world performance powered by hands-on experience with both cameras. Feel free to drop any questions or share your own shooting tales with these compacts - nothing beats learning from fellow shooters!

Happy clicking!