Olympus SZ-31MR iHS vs. Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W320: A Hands-On Comparison For Discerning Photographers

Selecting a compact camera today means balancing many trade-offs: image quality, zoom capability, ergonomics, and usability all jostle to top the priority list. Two contenders from the budget-friendly compact realm that have long intrigued enthusiasts are the Olympus SZ-31MR iHS and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W320. Though now dated, these cameras exemplify different philosophies in bridging portability and performance.

Having spent hours shooting side-by-side with both models, and rigorously testing across multiple photography disciplines and conditions, I’m ready to share in-depth insights on their technology, real-world capabilities, and which types of photographers will benefit most from each. Let’s dive beneath the specs and see how these cameras hold up when it comes to getting the shot.

First Impressions: Size, Ergonomics, and Build Quality

Before grabbing either camera, size and feel matter a great deal - especially for travel and street shooters who want gear that’s unobtrusive yet comfortable.

At 106 x 69 x 40 mm and 226 grams, the Olympus SZ-31MR is a compact but slightly chunky superzoom. Its robust build exudes a reassuring heft without feeling cumbersome, an aspect that supports steady shooting and longer handheld sessions.

In contrast, the Sony W320 measures just 93 x 52 x 17 mm and weighs 117 grams, making it ultra-compact - a definite advantage when pocketability rules. However, its slim profile translates to a bit more fragility and less comfortable grip, especially for larger hands.

The Olympus’s pronounced lens barrel and textured grip feel more substantial in hand. It’s designed for users who want zoom versatility and solid handling, while the Sony favors stealth and simplicity.

Control Layout

Looking at the top view reveals another aspect of usability:

The SZ-31MR offers a more traditional control setup, including a dedicated control dial and intuitive buttons for quick exposure adjustments - features photographers appreciate when shooting in varied conditions. The Sony model’s minimal control set and lack of manual exposure options reflect its aim at casual users wanting simple point-and-shoot operation.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of Any Camera

Moving to image quality, both cameras use 1/2.3" sensors measuring approximately 6.17 x 4.55 mm (~28 mm²), pretty standard for compact cameras of their era. The Olympus uses a BSI-CMOS sensor at 16 MP resolution, while the Sony opts for a 14 MP CCD sensor.

From extensive testing, the BSI-CMOS sensor in the Olympus yields noticeably better low-light performance and dynamic range. The back-illuminated architecture enhances light-gathering, which helps reduce noise at higher ISO sensitivities. In contrast, the Sony’s CCD sensor - common in earlier compacts - struggles in dimmer environments, producing more noise and lower dynamic range.

Detail rendition is mostly comparable in bright daylight, though the Olympus pulls ahead thanks to a slightly higher maximum resolution (4608 x 3456 vs 4320 x 3240). Edge sharpness across the frame is also more consistent on the SZ-31MR, likely assisted by its stabilized lens system.

Color reproduction is interestingly distinct: Sony tends towards warmer tones, arguably pleasing for portraits, whereas Olympus maintains a more neutral palette with accurate skin tones, essential for professional work.

Lens and Zoom: Versatility vs. Compactness

Arguably the standout feature of the Olympus SZ-31MR is its impressively broad 25-600 mm equivalent zoom range (24x). This massive focal reach lets photographers capture everything from wide landscapes to distant wildlife or sports action without changing lenses - a considerable advantage for travel and nature shooters.

Conversely, the Sony W320 offers a more modest but still useful 26-105 mm equivalent range (4x zoom), favoring wider field-of-view potential over reach.

While Sony’s focal range is well-suited to everyday photography - portraits, street, and casual snapshots - the Olympus zoom unlocks a much broader creative corridor. The trade-off, however, is bulkier lens front elements and a slower maximum aperture (f/3.0-6.9 versus Sony’s f/2.7-5.7), which affects low-light and depth-of-field control.

Macro Performance

Olympus also impresses with a close focusing distance of just 1 cm, ideal for macro shots rich with texture and detail. Sony’s macro limit is a more conventional 4 cm, sufficient for casual close-ups but not competitive for serious macro work.

Autofocus System: Speed, Accuracy, and Tracking

In any fast-paced shooting environment - wildlife, sports, or street photography - autofocus speed and tracking matter immensely.

Despite their compact class, the Olympus SZ-31MR integrates contrast-detect autofocus with face detection and continuous AF tracking, aiding in locking focus on moving subjects. During testing, I found its AF system to be quick and reliable in good light, though it can hunt in low-light or low-contrast scenes.

Sony’s W320 employs a simpler contrast autofocus with nine focus points but lacks face detection or continuous tracking. This leads to slower, less confident focus acquisition, especially on erratically moving subjects.

For photographers focused on subjects in motion, Olympus’s AF system offers a meaningful advantage.

Display and Interface: Usability In The Field

A camera’s rear screen is the primary interface with the user. Olympus sports a 3-inch 920k-dot touchscreen Hypercrystal III TFT LCD, a crisp and responsive display delivering vibrant color and sharp live previews.

Sony’s W320 has a smaller 2.7-inch 230k-dot fixed LCD with no touchscreen. The resolution and responsiveness pale in comparison.

This difference significantly influences framing, menu navigation, and tactile editing - touchscreen functionality adds convenience for rapidly adjusting settings on the Olympus.

Image Stabilization: Sharper Shots, Anywhere

Image stabilization can salvage handheld low-light shots and extend usability of longer focal lengths.

The Olympus SZ-31MR includes sensor-shift stabilization, which I found positively impactful, enabling sharper results at telephoto distances and slower shutter speeds. The stabilizer is indispensable for handheld shots beyond 100mm equivalent.

Sony’s W320 does not have image stabilization - a considerable limitation. At its shorter zoom range, it is less detrimental, but even moderate camera shake can reduce sharpness, particularly in dim lighting.

Video Capabilities: An Overview

Today's shooters expect versatile video features, even from compact cameras.

Olympus supports Full HD 1080p video at 30fps with MPEG-4 and H.264 codecs, delivering fairly clean footage and decent autofocus responsiveness during recording. Unfortunately, there’s no external microphone input.

Sony’s W320 records only 640 x 480 VGA video at 30fps in Motion JPEG format, which is noticeably outdated and lower quality, restricting its appeal for video enthusiasts.

Battery Life and Storage

Battery life is crucial for extended shooting sessions.

The Olympus uses a proprietary LI-50B battery pack rated for approximately 200 shots per charge - modest but expected for superzoom compacts with power-hungry electronics.

Sony’s battery details are less well documented; the NP-BN1 battery is smaller, but real-world stamina usually hovers around 200-250 shots.

Both cameras support SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, although Sony adds compatibility with Memory Stick Duo and Pro Duo formats, accommodating a wider range of storage media - a potential consideration for existing Sony users.

Connectivity, Extras, and Build Protection

In the connectivity department, Olympus edges ahead with Eye-Fi card support for wireless photo transfer via compatible SD cards, alongside micro-HDMI out and USB 2.0. The Sony model also has HDMI and USB but lacks wireless features altogether.

Neither camera offers Bluetooth, NFC, GPS, or environmental sealing - no surprises in this class, but something to keep in mind.

Genre-Specific Performance Insights

No camera is perfect for every type of photography. Here’s how they stack up across popular genres:

Portraits: Emphasizing Skin Tones and Bokeh

Olympus’s superior sensor and more neutral color profiles yield more faithful skin tones. Its longer zoom enables flattering portraits with compressive perspective and decent background blur at 600mm, though f/6.9 max aperture limits bokeh quality.

Sony’s warmer rendering is pleasant but less accurate, plus its shorter zoom hinders portraits beyond standard head-and-shoulders focal lengths.

Landscapes: Resolution, Dynamic Range, and Durability

Both offer similar high-resolution sensors, but Olympus’s CMOS sensor delivers better dynamic range to capture wide tonal variations crucial for scenic vistas.

Neither camera has environmental sealing or weather resistance, requiring caution during challenging conditions.

Wildlife and Sports: Autofocus Speed and Burst Rates

Olympus’s fast autofocus and 7 fps burst mode shine here, enabling capture of fleeting wildlife moments and sports action better than Sony’s single shot rate and limited AF.

Street Photography: Discretion and Portability

Sony’s tiny form factor makes it more discreet and pocketable, ideal for urban environments requiring low profile. Olympus is bulkier but offers greater zoom flexibility.

Macro Photography: Magnification and Focusing Precision

Olympus’s 1 cm close-focusing distance and stabilized shooter advantage make it the clear choice for macro shooters.

Night and Astro Photography: High ISO and Exposure Control

Olympus’s BSI-CMOS sensor and higher max ISO (6400) handle low-light better, though neither camera is tailor-made for advanced astro work.

Video: Recording Specs and Stabilization

Olympus supports true HD video and image stabilization for smoother footage; Sony’s VGA recording falls short.

Travel Photography: Versatility and Battery Longevity

Olympus offers versatile focal length range and comprehensive features but is bulkier; Sony excels in lightweight portability but sacrifices zoom and quality.

Professional Use: Reliability and Workflow Integration

Given the absence of RAW support on both, neither targets professionals directly. Olympus’s manual AF options and better image quality edge it closer for demanding amateur or casual professional use.

Olympus SZ 31MR iHS front Olympus SZ 31MR iHS screen back Sony W320 front Sony W320 screen back

Testing Methodology and Technical Metrics

My evaluation involved shooting hundreds of frames across multiple scenarios:

• Controlled lab tests for dynamic range, color accuracy, and noise levels
• Outdoor daylight, indoor low-light, macro, and telephoto comparisons
• Real-world field use emphasizing autofocus tracking and burst shooting
• Review of menus, user interface responsiveness, and ergonomics

This multifaceted approach ensures that my conclusions reflect performance you can rely on beyond spec sheets.

Overall Performance Ratings and Value Assessment

Time to sum it up in numbers reflecting my testing:

Breakdown by Photography Types: Who Should Choose Which?

• Portraits: Olympus’s superior color and zoom make it better suited for compelling portraits.
• Landscapes: Both manageable, though Olympus’s dynamic range favors richer images.
• Wildlife/Sports: Olympus, with faster AF and higher burst speed, is the clear winner.
• Street: Sony’s ultra-compact size and discreet profile win on portability.
• Macro: Olympus outperforms due to closer focusing and stabilization.
• Night/Astro: Olympus edge due to sensor tech.
• Video: Olympus offers vastly better specs and stabilization.
• Travel: Sony’s ultra-compact size is a draw for minimalist packing; Olympus offers broad shooting range.
• Professional Work: Neither is a pro tool, but Olympus’s better control may aid hobbyists.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

Olympus SZ-31MR iHS: The Versatile Superzoom That Packs a Punch

If you prioritize zoom reach, image quality, and autofocus performance, the SZ-31MR stands out. It’s a solid all-around compact, excellent for travel, wildlife, sports, and macro photography. The touchscreen interface, image stabilization, and full HD video add practical value. Its moderate weight and size feel substantial but not unwieldy.

The lack of manual exposure modes and RAW support limits appeal for advanced shooters, yet for many enthusiasts this camera strikes a fine balance of features and price.

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W320: Pocket-Friendly Simplicity for Casual Shooters

The W320’s strengths lie in ultra-portability and straightforward point-and-shoot operation. It suits casual photographers needing quick snapshots and easy carry. However, less capable sensor technology, limited zoom, absent stabilization, and lackluster video mean compromises.

If budget is extremely tight and size/weight paramount, Sony may suffice - just don’t expect exceptional image quality or flexibility.

In my hands-on experience, the Olympus SZ-31MR iHS takes the crown for general photography enthusiasts looking for a reliable superzoom compact that punches above its weight. The Sony DSC-W320, while charming for its slim footprint, feels eclipsed in almost every technical and performance measure.

Choosing the right camera ultimately comes down to your shooting style and priorities: reach and quality or pocket-sized convenience. I hope this detailed comparison helps you find the best fit for your photographic pursuits.

Happy shooting!