Olympus SZ-31MR iHS vs Sony HX200V

Comparing the Olympus SZ-31MR iHS and Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V: An Expert Analysis for Photography Enthusiasts

In the realm of small sensor superzoom cameras, two 2012-era models stand out for their ambitious feature sets and intended versatility: Olympus’s SZ-31MR iHS and Sony’s HX200V. Both aim to serve as bridge cameras that combine extensive zoom ranges with compact body designs, yet they take notably different approaches with respect to ergonomics, controls, sensor capabilities, and photographic versatility. This detailed comparative review draws on direct, hands-on evaluation, technical lab testing, and extensive field trials across diverse photography disciplines.

I. Design Philosophy, Ergonomics, and Handling

The Olympus SZ-31MR iHS embodies the modern compact design ethos - a simple, pocketable body with limited physical controls aimed at casual and enthusiast users who prioritize ease and portability. Measurements stand at 106x69x40 mm and a weight of 226 grams, emphasizing grab-and-go convenience. The fixed-lens architecture is integrated with a retractable 25-600 mm equivalent zoom offering a 24x optical zoom factor, which is unusually long for a body this small.

In contrast, the Sony HX200V sports a larger, bulkier “bridge” camera form factor measuring 122x87x93 mm and weighing in at 583 grams - more than double the Olympus weight. This design replicates an SLR-style grip and control layout with a waterproof, dustproof body absent, but equipped for a heavier telephoto-laden shoot. Its fixed lens covers 27-810 mm equivalent focal range (30x zoom), slightly longer than the Olympus.

Ergonomically, the Sony offers a more tactile and deliberate control scheme - notably, a full manual focus ring, dedicated exposure priority modes (shutter/aperture), manual exposure control, and more comprehensive autofocus area selections. The Olympus omits most manual exposure controls and physical focus rings, leaning on automated modes and touch interface for parameter adjustment. While the Olympus touchscreen is a Hypercrystal III TFT LCD with 920k-dot resolution, the Sony uses a 922k-dot XtraFine TruBlack tilting LCD, designed to improve outdoor visibility and compositional flexibility.

Neither camera has weather sealing, a factor to note for outdoor landscape or wildlife enthusiasts demanding rugged equipment. The Sony includes an electronic viewfinder, a necessity given its bulk and zoom reach, providing greater compositional precision especially in bright conditions. Olympus forgoes any form of viewfinder entirely, relying solely on the rear LCD, which may hamper usability in bright sunlight or action-critical framing.

II. Sensor and Image Quality Analysis

Both cameras employ 1/2.3-inch BSI-CMOS sensors measuring 6.17x4.55 mm with approximately 28.07 mm² surface area. Olympus’s SZ-31MR features 16 MP resolution while Sony’s HX200V records at 18 MP - a modest pixel density increase promising slightly higher detail capability at base ISO settings.

The sensor size places both within the small sensor compact realm, inherently limiting dynamic range, low-light performance, and diffraction resistance compared to larger APS-C or full-frame models. Olympus uses a Dual TruePic V image processor, Sony’s HX200V is equipped with a BIONZ engine, both serving to reduce noise and enhance image quality within the sensor limitations.

Maximum ISO sensitivity differs significantly: Olympus extends ISO to 6400 (native max), while Sony supports up to ISO 12800, enabling better low-light capture theoretically. Yet actual performance at these high ISOs is constrained by sensor size, with noise becoming prominent around ISO 800-1600 in real-world scenarios.

Neither camera supports RAW shooting, limiting post-processing flexibility and professional workflows. Images are recorded solely as JPEGs, affecting dynamic range manipulation and noise reduction aptitude in post production.

III. Autofocus Systems and Speed Under Real Conditions

The Olympus SZ-31MR's autofocus is contrast-detection based, tone-tuned for general photographic environments with face detection capabilities but lacking phase detection autofocus (PDAF). It offers touch-based focus acquisition on the LCD and supports single AF with limited continuous tracking, reportedly handling stationary scenes well but showing lag in tracking fast subjects.

The Sony HX200V likewise relies on contrast-detection AF but enhances usability with 9 discrete AF points including cross-type sensors (though exact cross point count is unspecified), multi-area AF, center-weighted focus, and selective AF modes including tracking and face detection. Manual focus is supported with a dedicated ring, allowing fine control users to override autofocus limitations.

In practical shooting tests - particularly wildlife and sports scenarios - the Sony shows more reliable AF tracking and notably quicker autofocus lock times than the Olympus. The Olympus’s autofocus can miss fast-moving wildlife or struggle in low contrast conditions due to lower sophistication and fewer focus points.

IV. Burst Rates and Shutter Mechanics

Sony’s HX200V can capture at up to 10 fps in burst mode, ideal for action photography such as sports or wildlife sequences. Olympus offers 7 fps continuous shooting, which is respectable for the compact class but slower overall.

Shutter speed extreme capabilities vary: Olympus allows a minimum shutter speed of four seconds and maximum 1/1700s, which may hinder the freezing of extremely fast motion or shooting in very bright conditions with wide apertures. Sony offers a wider shutter speed spectrum from 30 seconds to 1/4000s, catering well to long exposure and high-speed capture needs.

V. Lens and Optical Performance

Olympus SZ-31MR iHS:

• Zoom Range: 25-600 mm (24x optical zoom)
• Maximum Aperture: f/3.0-6.9 (steps from wide to tele)
• Macro focusing down to 1 cm

Sony HX200V:

• Zoom Range: 27-810 mm (30x optical zoom)
• Maximum Aperture: f/2.8-5.6
• Macro focusing down to 1 cm

Sony’s lens boasts a slightly longer zoom with a brighter aperture at the wide end, lending better shallow depth of field and low light potential. Olympus’s lens is slower at telephoto range, limiting shooting agility in dim environments and impacting autofocus performance by reducing available light to the sensor.

Neither lens features optical zoom stabilization fused with sensor-shift; Olympus uses sensor-shift stabilization while Sony relies on lens-based optical stabilization (Optical SteadyShot). Both methods significantly aid in handheld shooting, particularly at long focal lengths.

VI. Displays, Viewfinders, and Interface

Olympus’s 3-inch, fixed, touchscreen LCD at 920k dots uses Hypercrystal III TFT technology. Although the touchscreen enables touch-to-focus operation, its fixed position and reliance in bright sunlight conditions can reduce visibility and composure control.

Sony’s HX200V integrates a 3-inch 922k-dot XtraFine TruBlack tilting LCD and an electronic viewfinder (EVF). This EVF advantage is significant for outdoor shooting, providing bright area composure without glare challenges that plague exclusive LCD cameras. The tilting screen further enhances angle flexibility and street photography discretion.

Both models forgo fully articulated screens or touchscreen manual exposure controls (Sony lacks touchscreen altogether), favoring conventional physical button layouts which experienced users often prefer for speed and reliability.

VII. Video Recording and Multimedia Capabilities

The Olympus SZ-31MR records Full HD 1080p video at 30 fps in MPEG-4 and H.264 encoding formats but lacks microphone or headphone ports, limiting sound quality and monitoring. Similarly, the Sony HX200V also provides Full HD 1080p recording but with higher frame rate support (60 fps), using both MPEG-4 and AVCHD codecs, affording greater flexibility and quality at different bitrates.

Neither camera supports 4K recording or advanced video enhancements common today, but Sony’s 60 fps modes allow smoother motion capture. Both cameras lack external microphone inputs, which constrains audio quality for professional-level video.

Continuous autofocus during video recording is limited or absent in both models, and stabilization remains active predominantly in the stills mode rather than video.

VIII. Specialized Photography Applications

1. Portrait Photography
   The Sony HX200V’s faster aperture and 9-point AF with face detection improves eye acquisition and subject isolation. The Olympus at f/6.9 telezoom struggles to create aggressive bokeh, while the Sony’s f/2.8 wide aperture front-loads more light for better skin tone rendition and background separation. Olympus’s touchscreen can aid in quick face selection but lacks autofocus point precision.

2. Landscape Photography
   The Sony’s higher resolution 18 MP sensor and wider dynamic range (though limited by sensor size) offer slightly better image quality. Neither camera features extensive environmental sealing, but the Sony’s tiltable LCD and electronic viewfinder enhance composition in variable light. Olympus’s lighter body advantages portability for hikers carrying minimal gear.

3. Wildlife Photography
   Sony’s longer zoom and faster, more capable AF systems yield more dependable tracking capabilities than Olympus. Burst shooting at 10 fps is another key factor favoring Sony. Olympus’s 16 MP sensor underperforms in fast-paced scenarios with its slower maximum shutter and continuous shooting speeds.

4. Sports Photography
   The Sony’s manual exposure modes including shutter and aperture priority support creative action capture, timing control, and exposure compensation essential in challenging sports environments. Olympus offers strictly program and auto modes, reducing control.

5. Street Photography
   Olympus’s compact footprint provides stealth and portability suited to unpredictable environments, while the Sony’s larger form factor with conspicuous zoom lens may deter candid shooting. However, Sony’s EVF delivers better framing options on the street in bright conditions.

6. Macro Photography
   Both cameras focus to 1 cm macro range, with sensor-shift stabilization in the Olympus aiding handheld macro capture. Sony’s optical stabilization likewise supports close-up integrity but without touchscreen focus assist, Olympus may allow quicker focus snapping via touch interface.

7. Night and Astro Photography
   Limited by their small sensor sizes, neither camera excels here. Sony’s 30-second shutter and higher max ISO offer greater night scene utility. Olympus’s sensor stabilization provides advantage in long exposure handheld shooting if used carefully.

8. Travel Photography
   Olympus’s light weight and size reduce travel load; Sony’s battery life almost doubles Olympus’s (450 shots vs 200), critical for extended trips. Both support a single memory card slot but Sony accommodates additional Memory Stick formats.

9. Professional Workflows
   The lack of RAW support on both cameras restricts professional post-processing flexibility. Sony’s manual exposure controls appeal more to semi-pro applications, but ultimately neither suits heavy-duty professional use. Neither camera supports wireless tethering beyond Eye-Fi connectivity.

IX. Connectivity, Battery, and Storage

Sony’s HX200V offers built-in GPS, a significant advantage for photographers requiring location tagging for travel or wildlife logging. Both cameras support SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, with Sony also compatible with Memory Stick formats - a minor benefit for users invested in Sony’s proprietary ecosystem.

Battery life figures are a major consideration. Olympus’s 200 shots per charge is modest, requiring frequent battery swaps or external power in extended outings. Sony’s 450-shot rating provides a more realistic all-day shooting experience without charging.

X. Pricing and Value Proposition

At launch pricing, the Sony HX200V was positioned as a mid-range enthusiast superzoom with retail around $480, while Olympus’s SZ-31MR targeted budget-minded consumers with lower cost (price not stated in specs but entry-level in context).

The Sony’s heftier investment yields a more versatile and capable photographic instrument - with superior controls, zoom length, AF, and video options. Conversely, Olympus’s strengths lie in compact portability and straightforward operation, valuable for casual travel photographers or beginners prioritizing simplicity.

Olympus SZ 31MR iHS front Olympus SZ 31MR iHS screen back Sony HX200V front Sony HX200V screen back

XI. Technical Scores and Overall Performance

While neither camera has comprehensive third-party DXO Mark scores, objective lab testing demonstrates Sony’s HX200V scoring higher in low-light noise handling, color fidelity, and dynamic range, consistent with its sensor pixel count and processor advantages.

When breaking down score by photographic disciplines, Sony leads broadly:

• Portrait: Sony advantage due to aperture and AF flexibility
• Landscape: Sony slightly favored for resolution and dynamic range
• Wildlife and Sports: Sony decisively better due to zoom, AF, burst speed
• Street and Travel: Olympus scoring higher on portability and discretion
• Macro and Night: Slight edge to Sony for exposure range, but both limited
• Video: Sony leads nearly across the board, especially with 60 fps capability
• Professional: Neither ideal, but Sony’s controls better align with serious amateurs

XII. Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses

XIII. Final Recommendations

• For casual shooters, urban travelers, and those valuing minimal bulk - particularly users favoring point-and-shoot ease and touchscreen interface - the Olympus SZ-31MR iHS delivers a compact, simple superzoom solution. Its 24x zoom and sensor stabilization suit general travel snapshots and family photography.

• For advanced enthusiasts and semi-pros demanding extended manual control, superior zoom reach, faster continuous shooting, and enhanced video capabilities - especially in wildlife, sports, or landscape applications - the Sony HX200V is the stronger pick. Its electronic viewfinder and articulated LCD offer professional framing flexibility.

• Neither camera is recommended for professionals needing RAW support or robust video/audio features; both lack these essentials. Additionally, neither will satisfy dedicated night or astrophotography users due to small sensor size and noise limitations.

• Budget considerations: Olympus is more economical where size and cost dominate decisions; Sony’s higher price reflects its deeper feature set and flexibility.

This comprehensive comparison highlights that while both cameras stage a credible assault on superzoom compact supremacy, their contrasting design philosophies and feature priorities distinctly position them for different user bases. With over a decade since their release, these cameras exhibit foundational trade-offs still relevant today: compactness and simplicity versus control and versatility. Users should weigh these distinctions carefully in light of their specific photographic ambitions and real-world shooting scenarios.