Olympus SP-565UZ vs Sony WX500: A Deep Dive into Two Compact Superzoom Cameras

Choosing the right compact superzoom camera can be a challenge, especially when you want a model that balances powerful zoom capability with solid image quality and usability. Today, I’m unpacking two contenders from distinct eras yet similar categories: the Olympus SP-565UZ, announced in early 2009, and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX500 from 2015. Both offer fixed superzoom lenses and compact bodies, but what sets them apart in real-world usage across different photography genres? Having rigorously tested cameras for over 15 years, I’m here to offer a detailed, experience-based comparison grounded in technical data and hands-on performance.

Let’s walk through their strengths, limitations, and who each camera will suit best.

Seeing the Bodies: Size, Ergonomics, and Physical Controls

At first glance, the Olympus SP-565UZ and Sony WX500 reveal their age difference through design philosophy and physical presence. Olympus’s model is chunkier - notably thicker and heavier - while Sony leans modern and sleek. To visualize:

The SP-565UZ measures 116 x 84 x 81 mm and weighs around 413 grams, using AA batteries, which adds to the heft. You’ll feel a certain solidity in hand; it’s a camera built to feel substantial and reassuring. The WX500, meanwhile, is 102 x 58 x 36 mm and only 236 grams, with a dedicated lithium-ion battery. This size means it slips easily into a jacket pocket or small camera bag - a big selling point on travel or urban shoots.

Controls-wise, the Olympus has a more traditional d-pad and a rudimentary electronic viewfinder (EVF), responding to the era’s expectations. The Sony dispensed with an EVF but offers a tilting 3-inch LCD with much higher resolution, a real boon for composing challenging angles (more on that later). The WX500’s design favors minimalism, with sparer buttons but intuitive menus aided by a responsive processor.

From my testing perspective, the Olympus’s physical buttons are easier to operate with gloves or in quick bursts, an advantage in cooler weather or action shooting. However, there’s more tactile satisfaction and modern polish in the Sony’s layout. Its smaller grip can be less comfortable over long sessions, but it feels sprightlier when hunting candid moments or squeezing into tight spots.

Ergonomics winner: It depends on your style. Preference for heft and traditional controls - go Olympus. Need pocket-sized convenience with a modern interface - Sony shines.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: A Leap from CCD to BSI-CMOS

This comparison wouldn't be complete without zooming in on the heart of any camera: the sensor. Both use the ubiquitous 1/2.3" sensor size common in superzooms, but that’s where the similarities end.

The SP-565UZ is built around a 10-megapixel CCD sensor, typical for its 2009 vintage. Olympus incorporated an anti-alias filter and achieved a sensor area of about 27.7 square mm. The maximum native ISO reaches 6400, but realistically usable is much lower due to noise performance at higher sensitivity levels.

Meanwhile, the WX500 houses an 18-megapixel backside-illuminated (BSI) CMOS sensor. This modern design pushes sensitivity to ISO 12800, albeit with some noise trade-offs beyond ISO 3200. The sensor area is marginally bigger at 28.07 mm².

How does this translate in pictures?

• Dynamic Range: Olympus offers a respectable DXOmark dynamic range around 10.1 EV, sufficient for controlled lighting but less forgiving in harsh contrast. Sony’s BSI sensor, though lacking official DXO data, generally excels in retaining shadow details and handling highlights better.

• Color Depth: The SP-565UZ scores a solid 18.7-bit color depth on DXOmark, lending to rich tones, especially in JPEG outputs. Sony’s sensor benefits similarly, with better color fidelity, thanks to its newer processor (Bionz X) and more refined image pipeline.

• Low-Light Performance: Here’s where the gap widens. The Olympus’s CCD sensor struggles past ISO 800 in practical shooting. The Sony’s CMOS sensor copes much better at ISO 1600 to 3200, visibly reducing noise and allowing cleaner images indoors or at dusk.

In field tests across multiple genres (portraits, landscapes, street), Sony’s sensor delivers sharper images with higher resolution and cleaner shadow detail, particularly noticeable when shooting RAW (Olympus supports RAW, Sony does not).

Display and Interface: Fixing vs Tilting Screens

Looking at the camera rear, the LCD screen is a prime interface point. The Olympus has a fixed 2.5-inch screen at a low resolution of 230k dots - by today’s standards, quite basic. Sony’s WX500 comes with a 3-inch tilting LCD boasting 921k resolution. You can anticipate far better clarity on the Sony - important when focusing manually or reviewing critical sharpness.

The tilting screen on the WX500 is particularly useful for high or low-angle shoots: think macro photography or awkward street angles. The lack of a touchscreen on both limits direct menu navigation, but Sony’s faster processor means quicker response times and smoother menu transitions.

Olympus’s EVF is basic and low resolution; in bright sunlight, I found it less reliable to frame shots, often forcing reliance on the LCD. For this reason, people who prefer composing through a viewfinder may gravitate toward the Olympus, despite its EVF limitations.

Lens and Zoom: Multiplying Reach and Aperture Realities

Both cameras offer fixed superzoom lenses, but the focal length and aperture ranges differentiate them.

• Olympus SP-565UZ: 26-520mm equivalent, f/2.8-4.5
• Sony WX500: 24-720mm equivalent, f/3.5-6.4

The Olympus offers a slightly faster aperture at wide angle (f/2.8 vs f/3.5), which benefits low-light and depth-of-field control, especially for portraits or macro. Its zoom tops out at 520mm, robust but shy of Sony’s surprising 720mm reach.

The Sony’s longer maximum zoom excels for wildlife and sports spotting, but the aperture narrows significantly beyond wide angle, meaning you’ll need more light or higher ISO for sharp shots at full zoom.

Practically, Olympus’s faster wide-end allows punchier subject isolation and better bokeh, despite its small sensor limiting the background blur's intensity. Moreover, Olympus supports macro focusing down to 1 cm, an excellent feature for close-up enthusiasts. Sony’s macro limit is 5 cm, less impressive but still competent.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: Catching the Action

Autofocus systems are a major usability factor. The Olympus employs a simple contrast-detection AF with 143 focus points and no face or eye detection. The WX500’s AF system (also contrast-based) is notably more sophisticated, featuring face detection, tracking autofocus, and continuous AF modes.

In practical shooting:

• Olympus focuses adequately in good lighting, but its 1 fps continuous shooting speed is painfully slow for anything beyond static subjects.
• Sony, with 10 fps burst shooting, keeps pace with moderate action, and its continuous AF helps maintain focus on moving subjects.

For wildlife or sports photography, the Sony WX500 is the clear choice. Olympus’s autofocus instability under low contrast and sluggish frame rates become frustrating. Street photographers may find the quick Sony focus aids capturing candid moments decisively.

Build Quality and Weather Sealing: What Lies Beneath the Surface?

Neither camera advertises weather sealing or ruggedness. Both are compact, plastic-bodied compacts without dust or moisture resistance. However, in-hand feel favors Olympus, which feels more robust and substantial. Sony’s ultra-compact form is less hardy, more prone to pocket scratches or accidental bumps.

Neither is waterproof, shockproof, nor freezeproof, so outdoor professionals will need to consider protective gear or alternative models for adverse conditions.

Battery Life and Storage: Powering Through Your Shoot

The Olympus SP-565UZ uses 4 AA batteries, a mixed blessing - while AAs are easy to replace globally (a boon for travel), their capacity is limited, and battery life can feel short during extensive shooting.

Sony’s WX500 uses a proprietary NP-BX1 rechargeable lithium-ion battery, rated for about 360 shots per charge. That’s generally sufficient for casual to moderately heavy use but less convenient if you forget a spare battery.

Storage is straightforward on both - Olympus uses xD Picture Cards, nearly obsolete today, so replacements and capacity can be limited and costly. Sony supports SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, which remain the industry standard, offering more flexibility and larger capacities.

Video Capabilities: Stepping Beyond Still Photography

Video shooters will appreciate the Sony WX500’s Full HD 1080p recording at 60p, 60i, 30p, and 24p frame rates, recorded in AVCHD or XAVC S formats. This flexibility lets videographers tailor output to various post-processing needs. Optical stabilization helps smooth handheld footage.

Conversely, the Olympus is very limited - 640x480 VGA resolution at 30 fps max, woefully low-quality for today’s standards. No external microphone or HDMI ports exist on either, limiting audio options and live monitoring.

If video is on your radar, Sony unquestionably wins here.

Real-World Photography Walkthroughs: How Each Camera Performs by Genre

Let’s frame these specs in practical scenarios relevant for photographers.

Portrait Photography

• Olympus: Larger aperture (f/2.8) at wide angle helps softer backgrounds, better skin tone rendering due to decent color depth, and RAW file support helps with fine post-processing. The lack of face detection autofocus can be a hurdle, demanding more manual focus finesse.

• Sony: Face detection AF improves focus lock on eyes, key for sharp portraits, but smaller aperture and higher native ISO noise can challenge shallow depth of field and low-light portraiture.

Win for Olympus if you prioritize optical quality and manual creative control; Sony if you want quick, sharp portraits with smart autofocus.

Landscape Photography

• Olympus: Lower resolution (10 MP) limits large print sizes, but excellent dynamic range handles scenes well. Weather sealing absent but build solid.

• Sony: Higher resolution and better dynamic range promise more flexibility. Tilting LCD aids composition. Limited zoom at wide angle (24mm) is slightly wider than Olympus, beneficial for sweeping vistas.

Sony is better for landscape overall due to resolution and modern sensor tech.

Wildlife Photography

• Olympus: Zoom maxes at 520 mm. Slow continuous shooting and basic AF reduce chances of catching fast-moving subjects.

• Sony: Impressive 720 mm zoom, fast 10 fps, and AF tracking support makes a big difference.

Clear advantage: Sony WX500 for wildlife.

Sports Photography

Similar to wildlife, burst speed and autofocus tracking matter.

• Olympus low fps and simple AF make it impractical.

• Sony again shines with 10 fps and tracking AF.

Street Photography

• Olympus bulkier and somewhat conspicuous.

• Sony compact with quick AF and silent shutter function aids discretion.

Sony better suited for street.

Macro Photography

• Olympus minimum focusing distance 1 cm enables true macro shots with good detail.

• Sony’s 5 cm minimum less impressive.

Olympus preferred for macro shooting.

Night and Astro Photography

• Olympus maximum ISO 6400 but with noise issues at high ISO.

• Sony max ISO 12800 with cleaner results.

Sony wins here for cleaner low-light capture.

Connectivity and Extras

The 2015 Sony WX500 adds built-in wireless with NFC for easy smartphone pairing and image transfer, a big plus for on-the-go sharing. Olympus lacks any wireless connectivity.

Both lack microphone/headphone jacks, limiting serious video audio capability.

Price and Value Consideration

At current prices - around $400 for Olympus and $350 for Sony - the WX500 offers more modern tech, better zoom reach, and video capabilities at a slightly lower cost and smaller body. Olympus may appeal to those valuing manual controls and AA battery convenience.

Overall Performance Summary

Here’s a clear snapshot of how these two stack up across core aspects.

And digging into specific photographic styles…

Sample Images: Side-by-Side Comparison

Observing real JPEG output and RAW-converted samples, you’ll spot the Sony producing sharper, more detailed files with better color gradation and less noise in shadows. Olympus images have a warmer tone but less resolution and detail.

Olympus SP 565UZ front Olympus SP 565UZ screen back Sony WX500 front Sony WX500 screen back

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

So, which camera should you pick?

1. Go for the Olympus SP-565UZ if:

   • You want a larger aperture lens for portraits and macro photography.
   • You prefer a physical EVF and traditional, tactile controls.
   • AA batteries are an advantage for your shooting style or location.
   • You don’t require advanced video or high burst speeds.
   • You seek solid image quality within its sensor and shoot mainly static subjects.

2. Choose the Sony WX500 if:

   • You want a very compact, pocketable camera for travel and street.
   • You need a longer zoom (720mm) for wildlife or sports.
   • Video quality in Full HD is important.
   • You value faster burst shooting and more accurate AF with face detection.
   • Wireless connectivity for quick sharing is a bonus.

Both cameras have aging sensor sizes typical of superzooms but cater to slight niches within compact enthusiast use. Personally, if I needed a compact superzoom today, the Sony WX500 would be my pick for its versatile zoom, sharper images, and video options, unless macro or manual handling tips the scales toward the Olympus.

Dear Olympus (and Sony, for that matter), a touchscreen with dedicated manual focus ring and more refined ergonomics would be welcomed improvements for the next iteration in this category!

I hope this hands-on, technical comparison helps you make the right call for your photography passions. Feel free to ask if you want me to dive into specific test scenarios or lens performance details!