Olympus SP-620 UZ vs Sony H200: The Expert’s Guide to Choosing Your Next Superzoom Compact

When you’re hunting for a budget-friendly superzoom camera, the market offers a treasure trove of options that can get your creative juices flowing without draining your bank account. Today, I’m diving deep into a face-off between two stalwarts of the small-sensor, fixed-lens superzooms that still find favor among photography enthusiasts: the Olympus SP-620 UZ and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H200. Both come from respected brands, tout an impressive zoom range, and sport similar specs on paper. But as someone who’s tested thousands of cameras over the years, I’m here to tell you - there’s always more to the story than megapixels and focal lengths.

Pull up a chair, grab your favorite snack, and let’s unpack these two from top to toe - covering real-world performance, image quality, ergonomics, and everything between. By the end, you’ll know which camera deserves a spot in your gear bag or if you should keep hunting.

First Impressions: Size, Build, and Controls

Before we dissect the numbers, let’s start with the thing you hold and carry - physical design and ergonomics. The Olympus SP-620 UZ embraces a compact point-and-shoot form factor, noticeably smaller and lighter than the Sony H200, which sports a more bulky, bridge-style DSLR look. Here’s a side-by-side look:

The SP-620 UZ’s 110x74x74 mm body and 435g weight let it slip easily into a jacket pocket or small bag, making it a great travel companion for photographers who hate lugging clubs for thumbs everywhere they go. The Sony H200, at 123x83x87 mm and weighing 530g, is chunkier and almost feels like carrying a mini DSLR rather than a compact.

What you lose in portability with the Sony, you gain in grip and handling. It has a pronounced hand grip and more substantial buttons that feel satisfying to operate - especially if you find thin compacts fiddly or frustrating. The SP-620 uses simpler, minimal controls, which could be a plus if you want straightforward snap-and-go but frustrating for shooters who crave manual control or quick access to settings.

Here’s a top-down comparison to get a better feel of their layout differences:

You’ll notice neither camera features customizable dials or exposure modes like aperture priority or shutter priority - a definite tradeoff for budget and simplicity.

Verdict:
If portability and ease of use are your priorities, the Olympus edges out here. If you want a chunkier camera with more pronounced controls, the Sony H200 has the better feel.

Sensor and Image Quality: Zooming Into the Details

Let’s get technical. Both cameras use a small 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor, common in compact superzooms of their era, but with slight differences in resolution and processor backing.

Though the Sony sports a higher megapixel count - 20MP versus Olympus’s 16MP - the effective sensor size remains tiny. This means noise performance at high ISO will be limited on both, and true dynamic range falls well short of what you’d get with larger sensors.

Here’s a graphical visual to help situate sensor sizes relative to image quality potential:

In real life, this means both cameras struggle in low light beyond ISO 800. Images in bright conditions or well-lit outdoor scenes yield decent detail, but you’ll notice softness creeping in at the edges of images and when you zoom to pixel-peep.

But what about zoom?

The Olympus offers a 25-525 mm equivalent focal length, which is a respectable 21x optical zoom. The Sony ups the ante to approx. 24-633 mm (that's 26.4x zoom), extending your reach notably for distant subjects - great if you love wildlife or want to capture distant architecture but are on a budget.

Image Stabilization:

• Olympus SP-620 UZ features sensor-shift stabilization, which helps combat handshake during telephoto shots and handheld macros.
• Sony H200 uses optical image stabilization (lens-shift), which is often more effective in telephoto ranges.

I put both to the test handheld at their respective max zooms. The Sony’s stabilization provides steadier results, with fewer ruined shots at extreme zooms. The Olympus, while helpful, sometimes failed to keep things sharp without bracing yourself or increasing shutter speed.

Verdict:
Sony’s higher resolution and longer zoom are definite advantages if you don’t mind sacrificing a bit of portability.

LCD Screens and Viewfinder Experience: Composing Your Shot

Neither model sports an electronic viewfinder (EVF), so you’re tethered to their rear LCDs for framing your shots. Let’s compare.

The Olympus SP-620 has a 3-inch fixed TFT LCD with a modest 230k-dot resolution. The Sony’s 3-inch LCD boasts a much crisper 460k-dot ClearPhoto display.

Here is how they look side-by-side:

In bright sunlight, the Sony’s screen is noticeably clearer and easier to navigate, particularly when trying to frame zoomed-in shots or adjust menu settings. The Olympus’s screen suffers from glare and lower contrast, making it tough to check focus or review images outdoors.

Neither boasts touchscreen functionality, which would have been nice for a quick tap-to-focus or menu navigation.

Verdict:
Sony H200 delivers a better viewing experience thanks to its superior LCD quality.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance: Will It Lock and Shoot?

Both cameras feature contrast-detection autofocus systems with face detection and tracking, but no phase-detection elements or advanced AF features.

• Olympus SP-620 UZ: Offers face detection AF with tracking but no continuous autofocus during video or burst modes.
• Sony H200: Adds center-weighted AF area selection with face detection and supports up to 8 frames per second in continuous shooting mode.

In practice, both cameras lock focus reasonably well in good light on moderate contrast subjects. However:

• For moving subjects (sports/wildlife), the Sony’s slightly faster burst shooting and AF tracking is an advantage.
• The Olympus struggles slightly with focus hunting in dim lighting and macro work.
• Neither camera provides manual focus controls (surprisingly), which limits creative control especially for macro or selective focusing.

Verdict:
Sony has a marginal edge for action and wildlife photography, but both are best suited for casual shooters rather than pros chasing crisp focus at speed.

How Do They Handle in Real Photography Disciplines?

Let’s get out into the field and look at how each camera performs across typical photography types - because specs only tell one side of the story.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones and Background Blur

Portraits require good color rendering and pleasing skin tones, plus a lens with wide aperture to create soft backgrounds (bokeh). On both cameras:

• The max aperture ranges from f/3.1 at wide angle to roughly f/5.8/5.9 at telephoto - narrower apertures compared to interchangeable-lens cameras, so don’t expect dreamy blurred backgrounds.
• Face detection helps lock onto subjects, but neither camera can focus particularly near (Olympus macro focus to 1cm is good, Sony’s macro minimum 20cm is less impressive).
• Color tones from Olympus tend to be slightly warmer; Sony edges toward cooler, more neutral skin tones. Both cameras produce some softness around edges at max zoom.

If bokeh is high on your priority list, these cameras won’t compete with DSLRs or mirrorless with fast primes. But for casual family portraits, either will work.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Resolution

Landscape shooters want maximum detail, wide dynamic range to capture highlights and shadows, and sturdy build for outdoor use.

• Both cameras score low on environmental robustness - no weather sealing or ruggedness.
• Dynamic range is limited by small sensors - shadows often clip, and highlights blow out in harsh light.
• Sony’s extra resolution (20MP) helps extract a little more detail.
• The Olympus's zoom starts at 25mm, which is wider than the Sony’s 24mm equivalent, but the difference is negligible in landscape terms.

Verdict:
Landscape shooters will benefit more from carrying an interchangeable lens system, but if you want a compact option, Sony H200’s higher resolution and longer zoom give a bit more flexibility.

Wildlife Photography: Zoom Reach and Autofocus Speed

Both cameras target casual wildlife shooters with their mega-zooms:

• Sony’s 26.4x zoom (24-633mm eq.) far outdoes Olympus’s 21x.
• Autofocus speed is slow-to-moderate on both but Sony is quicker to lock on and maintain tracking under good light circumstances.
• Neither camera offers silent shutter or shooting speed to capture fast animals in motion.

Considering these limits, the H200 is better if you want reach and occasional animal shots but don’t expect DSLR-like wildlife performance.

Sports Photography: Frame Rate and Tracking

Sports fans will be disappointed by the limited continuous shooting on Olympus (unspecified but slow) versus Sony’s 8 fps max burst. Again, autofocus tracking is basic and prone to hunting under complex scenes.

If you’re photographing kids’ soccer games or casual events, Sony offers better chances of capturing the action.

Street Photography: Discretion and Portability

Street shooting calls for lightweight gear and quick operation.

Olympus wins hands down for portability and discretion due to smaller size and weight. Sony’s bulk and SLR-style appearance make it more conspicuous.

Both cameras are quiet in operation but without EVFs, you’re stuck with LCD composing, which can slow things down under sunlight.

Macro Photography: Close Focusing and Stability

Olympus lets you get as close as 1 cm, which is impressive for a compact camera, providing the ability to capture detailed close-ups of flowers and insects. Sony’s macro minimum focusing distance is around 20 cm - less versatile for tight close-ups.

Olympus’s sensor-shift stabilization aids steady macro shots handheld; Sony uses lens stabilization which is good but less effective at extreme close-ups.

Night and Astro Photography: ISO Performance and Exposure Flexibility

Both cameras top out at ISO 3200 but small sensors and noise reduction algorithms produce grainy results at high ISO.

Neither provides manual exposure modes or long-exposure bulb control, which limits astrophotography.

Low-light handheld shots at night will be best attempted under well-lit city conditions.

Video Capabilities: Recording Specs and Stabilization

Video is a sweet spot for casual shooters wanting quick clips:

The Olympus codec H.264 compression yields decent quality, but video is limited to HD, no Full HD or 4K options.

Although neither camera features a mic jack for external audio, their built-in mics do okay in quiet environments.

Sony’s optical stabilization lends smoother video, especially during panning, compared to Olympus’s sensor-shift.

Travel Photography: Versatility, Battery Life, Portability

Travelers prioritize size, battery life, and versatility:

• Olympus’s smaller size helps, and its 4x AA battery system is convenient in remote areas (you can find AA alkalines worldwide).
• Sony also uses 4x AA with marginally cited battery life (240 shots vs. no official figure for Olympus).
• Sony’s broader zoom range extends creative options when travel limits luggage.

Professional Use: Raw Support and Workflow Integration

Neither camera supports RAW shooting, a major limitation for pros who need post-processing flexibility and high-quality images for commercial tasks.

File outputs are strictly JPEG, limiting dynamic range recovery and fine color grading.

Additional Considerations: Lens, Storage, Connectivity

• Both have fixed lenses, so lens ecosystem is irrelevant.
• Both accept SD/SDHC/SDXC memory cards; Sony additionally supports Sony’s Memory Stick formats.
• Wireless connectivity: Olympus includes Eye-Fi support for wireless image transfer (depending on Eye-Fi card), while Sony has none except USB.
• No GPS, NFC, or Bluetooth on either model.
• HDMI output only on Olympus.

Real Sample Images and Sharpness Comparison

To really see what you’re buying, I compared JPG shots and video clips from both cameras under controlled conditions:

Olympus SP 620 UZ front Olympus SP 620 UZ screen back Sony H200 front Sony H200 screen back

Note: The Sony images exhibit slightly more resolution and less noise in daylight. Olympus images have more vibrant colors but less fine detail.

Final Performance Ratings Based on Hands-On Testing

Combining lab tests and real-world shooting, here are the overall scores:

Genre-Specific Scores: Tailored Advice for Your Shooting Style

Summary: Who Should Buy Which Camera?

My Personal Recommendations

If you’re a cheapskate like me who hates carrying big cameras but wants decent zoom coverage for family trips, street candid shots, and close-up flower or insect pics, the Olympus SP-620 UZ is the better companion. Its portability, competent image stabilization, and close focus capabilities breathe life into casual shoots without burden.

However, if you crave extra zoom reach for faraway subjects, like spotting birds or distant action, and want a sharper display and a slightly quicker shooting experience, the Sony H200 is worth the additional few bucks and size penalty.

Neither camera will satisfy pros or enthusiasts aiming for craft-quality images or professional reportage - consider stepping up to mirrorless or DSLR if RAW shooting and manual control are must-haves.

Wrapping Up

Both the Olympus SP-620 UZ and Sony H200 serve distinct niches in the crowded superzoom camera space. They each offer a set of compromises between portability, zoom reach, image quality, and features - but for under $300, they punch well above their weight in delivering versatile, fun photography experiences.

Your perfect pick comes down to whether you prize pocketability or reach most. Trust me, after spending weeks testing both side-by-side, neither will blow you away by pro standards, but if you’re moving up from smartphone photography or just want a capable budget zoom for casual shooting, you can’t really go wrong.

Happy shooting - and may your next camera capture countless memories with clarity and joy!