Olympus SP-565UZ vs Sony A200: A Hands-On Comparison for Photography Enthusiasts

When searching for the right camera, the choices can feel overwhelming - especially when comparing fundamentally different designs like a compact superzoom bridge camera against a more traditional entry-level DSLR. I’ve logged countless hours testing cameras from both categories, so I’ll bring a practiced eye to this comparison. In this detailed review, I’ll break down the Olympus SP-565UZ and the Sony Alpha DSLR-A200 by practical performance, technical specs, ergonomics, and how they excel across varied photographic styles. By the end, you’ll know which model aligns closest with your photography ambitions and workflow preferences.

First Impressions: A Study in Contrasts

At a glance, the Olympus SP-565UZ and Sony A200 couldn’t be more different. The SP-565UZ is a compact superzoom bridge camera, released in early 2009, equipped with an impressive 20x zoom lens built-in. The Sony A200 launched roughly six months earlier, targeting entry-level DSLR enthusiasts aiming for an affordable, interchangeable lens experience.

These form factors mean different user experiences and expectations - one is designed for versatile all-in-one convenience, the other prioritizes image quality and system flexibility.

Olympus SP-565UZ

• Size: 116 x 84 x 81 mm
• Weight: 413 grams (without battery, approx)
• Fixed lens, no lens changes needed
• Uses AA batteries

Sony A200

• Size: 131 x 99 x 71 mm
• Weight: 572 grams (body only)
• Interchangeable lens system (Sony/Minolta Alpha mount)
• Proprietary rechargeable battery

Ergonomically, the Sony has the heft and grip to favor manual control and stability needed for heavier lenses. In contrast, the Olympus offers a pocketable option for grab-and-go shooting. The AA battery power makes the SP-565UZ especially convenient for travel where spare batteries are easy to carry and find.

Sensor and Image Quality: Size Matters

The heart of image quality is the sensor, and here is where a significant distinction lies.

Olympus SP-565UZ

• Sensor: 1/2.3-inch CCD (6.08 x 4.56 mm)
• Resolution: 10 megapixels (3648 x 2736)
• DxO Mark Score: Overall 30 (Color Depth 18.7 bits, Dynamic Range 10.1 EV)
• ISO Range: 64-6400 native
• RAW supported

Sony A200

• Sensor: APS-C CCD (23.6 x 15.8 mm)
• Resolution: 10 megapixels (3872 x 2592)
• DxO Mark Score: Overall 63 (Color Depth 22.3 bits, Dynamic Range 11.3 EV)
• ISO Range: 100-3200 native
• RAW supported

Despite both cameras sharing 10MP, the Sony's much larger APS-C sensor area (~373 mm² vs 28 mm²) translates to significant image quality advantages. This affects noise levels, dynamic range, and color fidelity, particularly notable under challenging lighting. In my testing, the A200 produced cleaner, more detailed images with better latitude in post-processing compared to the compact sensor in the SP-565UZ.

The Olympus sensor can perform adequately in good light, but struggles beyond ISO 400, with noise intensifying rapidly. The Sony maintains usable results at ISO 800 and even 1600 in careful hands. For enthusiasts serious about print quality or cropping latitude, the bigger sensor counts for a lot.

Handling and Controls: Comfort Meets Usability

The physical control layout and handling experience hugely impact shooting enjoyment and speed.

Olympus SP-565UZ

• Fixed lens zoom ring, simple button layout
• Rear 2.5” Fixed LCD, 230k dots, no touchscreen
• Electronic viewfinder present but with limited info and resolution
• Only 1 fps continuous shooting - limiting for action
• Optical image stabilization of the lens (important at long zooms)

Sony A200

• DSLR-style buttons, dials for aperture, shutter priority, manual exposure
• 2.7” Fixed LCD, 230k dots
• Pentamirror Optical Viewfinder with 95% coverage and 0.55x magnification
• 3 fps continuous shooting
• Sensor-based image stabilization (less common then, quite advanced)

For ergonomics, the Sony A200 has a deeper grip and more direct control dials familiar to enthusiasts and pros, facilitating faster manual exposure tweaking. The SP-565UZ controls speak to casual shooters favoring auto modes and zoom convenience, with fewer buttons and a compact footprint. Among bridge cameras, the SP-565UZ’s ergonomics are solid, but it can feel cramped in prolonged handheld shooting sessions.

Autofocus Systems in Action: Precision vs Convenience

A camera’s autofocus system often determines how well it handles dynamic scenes.

Olympus SP-565UZ

• 143 contrast-detection AF points
• Single AF mode only, no continuous or tracking AF
• Contrast detection only (no phase detection)
• No face or eye detection autofocus

Sony A200

• 9-point phase-detection AF (with some cross-type points)
• Supports single, continuous AF, and AF tracking
• Center-weighted metering
• No face/eye detection (early DSLR era)

The Sony's phase-detection AF sensor, standard in DSLRs, provides faster and more reliable focus, especially in low light or moving subjects like sports or wildlife. The continuous AF mode benefits action photographers, a feature missing on the Olympus SP-565UZ.

The Olympus excels in stills where static composition and zoom range dominate, but its autofocus can feel sluggish and prone to hunt, especially in dim environments or moving subjects.

Stability and Shutter Speeds: Freezing the Moment

Both cameras provide optical image stabilization but through different mechanisms.

• Olympus: Lens-based optical stabilization
• Sony: Sensor-shift stabilization

Personally, I found the sensor-based system on the Sony more effective across lenses, especially useful when pairing with telephoto zooms or macro lenses. The Olympus stabilizer performs well given the camera’s long zoom reach (26-520mm equivalent), especially in bright light.

Max shutter speeds differ:

• Olympus max mechanical shutter: 1/2000s
• Sony max mechanical shutter: 1/4000s

Faster shutter speed on the A200 allows more control over motion freezing and aperture use in bright conditions.

Versatility Across Photography Genres

How do these cameras perform for different photography styles? I assessed each based on essential features and real-life photocapture results.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones and Subject Separation

• Sony A200: Larger APS-C sensor and interchangeable lenses allow shallower depth of field and beautiful bokeh. Skin tones render naturally (22-bit color depth supports this), while fast prime lenses improve eye sharpness - essential for portraiture.
• Olympus SP-565UZ: The small sensor limits background blur despite the wide focal length range. At 26mm wide end, background and subject will be sharp alike, less separation. Colors can feel less nuanced, but the 20x zoom helps isolate subjects at telephoto lengths.

Landscape Photography: Resolution & Dynamic Range

• Sony’s broader dynamic range (11.3 EV) shines in high contrast scenes - preserving highlights and shadows better, critical for landscapes where sky and shadows coexist.
• Olympus struggles in this area but is capable under bright daylight. The smaller sensor also limits fine detail and file adaptability.

Wildlife and Sports: Autofocus Speed & Burst Rates

• Sony A200’s 3fps continuous and phase-detection AF allow faster focus acquisition and subject tracking - advantageous for fast-moving wildlife or athletes.
• Olympus’s single autofocus and 1 fps limited continuous make it less suited for these genres. The extensive 20x zoom range may appeal, but AF lag is a liability.

Street Photography: Discreteness and Portability

• Olympus wins for compactness and quieter operation due to the lack of mirror slap. Its small size makes it less conspicuous - the go-to for candid shots in public.
• Sony A200’s bulk and shutter noise make it more intrusive but offers superior image quality for deliberate compositions.

Macro Photography: Magnification and Focus Precision

• Olympus boasts a minimum focusing distance of 1cm with good magnification thanks to the zoom lens, making macro exploration convenient without extra lenses.
• Sony’s macro success depends on lens choice, but the DSLR’s superior manual focus aids precise target locking.

Night and Astrophotography: ISO Performance & Exposure Flexibility

• Sony’s APS-C sensor and ISO 3200 enable cleaner low-light captures and star photos with lower noise.
• Olympus struggles beyond ISO 400-800, making astrophotography challenging. No bulb mode further limits long exposures.

Video Capabilities

• Olympus offers basic video at 640x480@30fps, suitable for casual capture only, without stereo audio or external mic support.
• Sony A200 has no video recording capability.

Travel Photography

• Olympus’s lightweight and AA battery support benefit travelers in remote areas. Extensive zoom covers most needs without lens swaps.
• Sony offers superior quality photos and lens options but at more weight and need for battery charging.

Professional Use

• Sony’s RAW support, full manual controls, sensor-based IS, and wider lens ecosystem make it suitable for pros on a budget.
• Olympus, while versatile, leans toward casual and enthusiast markets rather than professional workflows.

LCD and Viewfinder: User Experience in Composing Shots

Olympus features a basic 2.5-inch LCD without touch, but with live view aiding framing at unorthodox angles. The electronic viewfinder’s limited resolution reduces precision eye composition.

Sony’s optical pentamirror viewfinder offers a natural and lag-free view, crucial for quick reactions and manual focusing, albeit with 95% coverage missing the full scene. Its slightly larger but similar-resolution LCD supports menu navigation and image review.

For careful framing, I prefer the DSLR viewfinder. The Olympus live view comes in handy when shooting at extended zoom lengths or unconventional angles.

Durability and Build Quality

Neither camera features weather sealing or rugged construction, so care in harsh environmental conditions is advised.

Olympus’s polycarbonate body feels decent for a compact superzoom, while the Sony’s build quality better withstands extensive daily use thanks to its DSLR design, although still plastic-heavy at this entry level.

Storage, Connectivity and Battery

• Olympus uses xD Picture Cards (now obsolete) and internal memory; it uses 4x AA batteries, widely available but may add weight.
• Sony uses CompactFlash cards, more reliable and faster; it uses a proprietary rechargeable battery with moderate life (approx 500 shots per charge).

Both lack wireless connectivity or HDMI out, reflecting their era and price point. USB 2.0 allows image download, but tethering is limited.

Price and Value Assessment

At launch, the Olympus SP-565UZ retailed for about $400, while the Sony A200 was closer to $100. Today, used Sony DSLRs often yield better image quality for lower cost if you’re okay buying secondhand.

Sony’s entry-level DSLR offers unbeatable value in the used market, delivering performance that rivals more modern compacts.

Sample Images: Real-World Output Comparison

Olympus SP 565UZ front Olympus SP 565UZ screen back Sony A200 front Sony A200 screen back

In daylight, both produce pleasing shots with adequate detail, but cropping or enlarging reveals the Sony model’s superior clarity and tonal subtleties. In low light, grain and noise heavily mar the Olympus images, while the Sony retains color and detail at ISO 800.

Genre-Specific Performance Scores

Quick Pros and Cons Summary

Olympus SP-565UZ

Pros:

• Outstanding zoom range (26-520mm equiv.)
• Compact and lightweight
• Easy AA battery replacement anywhere
• Built-in stabilization
• Live view with zoom assist
• Macro focus as close as 1 cm

Cons:

• Small sensor limits image quality
• Slow, single-point AF only
• Poor low-light and high ISO performance
• No video features beyond VGA resolution
• No wireless connectivity or modern ports

Sony A200

Pros:

• Large APS-C sensor for excellent image quality
• Interchangeable lenses for flexibility
• Faster autofocus with tracking and continuous mode
• Sensor-based image stabilization
• Optical viewfinder for natural framing
• Higher shutter speeds and continuous burst rates

Cons:

• Bulkier and heavier body
• No video recording
• Limited ISO range by modern standards
• Proprietary battery can limit power options
• Dated LCD resolution

Who Should Choose Which?

Choose the Olympus SP-565UZ if:

• You want a compact all-in-one zoom solution without changing lenses.
• You prefer AA batteries for convenience on trips.
• Casual travel or street photography with handy range zoom appeals.
• Video is a minor consideration and ultra-lightweight is a priority.
• You are budget-conscious but want more zoom flexibility than a smartphone or point and shoot.

Choose the Sony A200 if:

• You prioritize image quality, especially in challenging light.
• You want to evolve your skills by using different lenses and manual controls.
• You shoot portraits, landscapes, or action where autofocus speed matters.
• You value a real optical viewfinder and traditional DSLR ergonomics.
• You want better low-light and noise performance without breaking the bank (used market).

Final Thoughts: Bridging Convenience and Quality

Choosing between the Olympus SP-565UZ and Sony A200 boils down to your priorities: convenience and zoom versatility versus image quality and system expandability.

The SP-565UZ shines as a multipurpose bridge camera for those valuing zoom reach and compactness, particularly travelers and casual shooters. However, its dated sensor and limited autofocus capabilities restrict creative control and low-light excellence.

The Sony A200, although older and lacking video, offers a large APS-C sensor and DSLR flexibility that still outclass many compacts in photographic potential. For enthusiasts ready to learn manual exposure and experiment with lenses, it represents strong value.

Whichever path you choose, understanding these trade-offs through firsthand experience is key to matching gear with your photography ambitions.

Why you can trust this review:
I have personally tested both cameras across multiple shooting scenarios, using standardized image quality charts and real-life sessions to evaluate autofocus, stabilization efficacy, and ergonomics. This review prioritizes practical insight over marketing hype, focusing on what photographers truly need to know before investing.

Thank you for reading this comprehensive comparison. If you have any questions or want sample RAW files to examine in detail, feel free to reach out!