Olympus Stylus 1 vs. Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX350: An Expert Comparison of Two Small Sensor Superzooms

Within the compact but versatile realm of small sensor superzoom cameras, the Olympus Stylus 1 (hereafter “Olympus 1”) and Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX350 (hereafter “Sony HX350”) stand out as notable contenders. Both cameras appeal to enthusiast photographers seeking extensive focal range with manageable sizes and prices. However, despite this shared category, their technical characteristics and operational nuances diverge in meaningful ways that impact suitability for varied shooting scenarios. This detailed comparative review draws from extensive hands-on testing and analysis to reveal real-world performance, technical strengths, and workflow implications of each model.

Physical Design and Ergonomics: Handling the Bridge Camera Form Factor

At a glance, both cameras adopt an SLR-like bridge design, intended to combine telephoto reach with direct control interfaces closer to traditional DSLRs. However, their size, weight, and ergonomic details reveal distinct philosophies.

• Olympus 1 measures a compact 116x87x57 mm and weighs approximately 402 grams, favoring portability. Its magnesium alloy body construction, while not weather-sealed, offers a robust yet light chassis. Ergonomically, the Olympus features a grip-friendly design with tactile, well-placed manual dials and buttons.
• Sony HX350 is larger at 130x93x103 mm and considerably heavier at 652 grams, reflecting its longer 50x zoom lens with mechanical complexity. The bulk impacts one-handed shooting comfort and travel carry considerations. Despite the increased size, Sony’s body incorporates firm grips and a restrained control layout.

Both provide tilting rear LCD screens and adequate grip, but the Olympus is inherently more pocketable for travel or street use, whereas the Sony’s heft benefits balance with extended lenses in telephoto shooting.

Regarding control layouts, the Olympus 1 boasts a more comprehensive set of direct-access dials - an exposure compensation dial encircles the mode dial, supplemented by a dedicated aperture ring on the lens barrel. This affords rapid manual exposure adjustments without diving into menus, an advantage for enthusiasts seeking intuitive tactile control.

The Sony HX350’s top plate is less densely populated, and while it incorporates a mode dial and zoom/focus rings, it lacks a dedicated aperture ring, relying more on button-driven interface navigation. This reflects Sony’s design tradeoff prioritizing zoom range over manual accessibility; it may slow down experienced users accustomed to direct aperture changes.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: Balancing Resolution, Size, and Noise

Sensor performance fundamentally influences output image quality, especially in challenging lighting.

From technical measurement and real-world shooting, sensor size and processing critically affect dynamic range, noise control, and color fidelity.

• Olympus 1's larger 1/1.7" sensor delivers a balanced 12 MP resolution that prioritizes per-pixel size over megapixel count, aiding noise suppression and wide dynamic range. DxOMark data rates the Olympus 1 with a decent color depth of 20.7 bits and dynamic range at 11.6 EV, pushing low-light ISO to 179 equivalent.
• Sony HX350’s 1/2.3" sensor is smaller with a higher pixel density at 20 MP, potentially risking more noise especially in shadows and high ISO scenarios. Sony’s sensor lacks official DxOMark testing, but practical results show increased granularity beyond ISO 800 and a comparatively restricted dynamic range.

In practice:

• The Olympus excels in situations demanding clean mid- to high-ISO images, such as indoor event shooting or dim landscapes.
• The Sony benefits from higher maximum resolution better suited to extensive cropping or large prints but requires careful ISO management.

Neither camera matches APS-C or Full Frame quality, but within their class, the Olympus' sensor yields generally superior low-light performance and color rendering fidelity.

Autofocus System and Speed: Performance in Dynamic Conditions

Efficient and accurate autofocus (AF) is pivotal in capturing decisive moments across genres from wildlife to sports.

Olympus incorporates a more detailed 25-point contrast AF system, which combined with face detection supports reasonably accurate tracking in live view and EVF. Continuous AF at about 7 fps burst is effective at moderately capturing moving subjects, but the camera’s contrast system and non-phase detection focus limit lag under very fast motion.

The Sony HX350, despite having a newer processor (BIONZ X), employs an AF system with fewer declared focus points and lacks continuous tracking face detection, sacrificing usability in rapid or erratically moving subjects. Continuous shooting improves to 10 fps but AF has more difficulty maintaining lock.

In hands-on testing:

• Olympus 1 autofocus is better suited for controlled portrait sessions and casual wildlife, with decently fast AF acquisition.
• Sony HX350 autofocus can falter on fast sports or wildlife but offers greater focal reach for subjects at long distances.

Neither camera supports advanced eye or animal tracking technologies typical in more premium models, which reflects their age and market tier.

Lens and Zoom Range: Versatility versus Optical Quality

The defining characteristic of these cameras is their fixed lens superzoom design.

A noteworthy strength of the Olympus is its constant bright F2.8 aperture across the entire zoom range. This enables consistent low-light performance and shallow depth of field for portraits or background separation without exposure penalties when zooming.

In contrast, the Sony HX350 offers an extensive 50x zoom reaching an extraordinary 1200 mm equivalent focal length but only maintains F2.8 wide-open at the shortest end, tapering to F6.3 at the tele end. This translates into:

• At long telephoto ranges, the Sony requires higher ISO and/or slower shutter due to reduced light-gathering, increasing noise and blur risk.
• A complex optical formula accommodating the 50x zoom introduces edge softness and distortions more noticeable at extremes.

The Olympus’s smaller zoom range is accompanied by better edge-to-edge sharpness, less distortion, and more consistent color rendition. Its minimum macro focusing distance of 5 cm allows for reasonable close-ups, while Sony’s 1 cm macro suggests better extreme close-up ability; however, this is offset by narrower aperture at these distances.

For photographers valuing telephoto reach above all, Sony HX350’s 50x zoom is unrivaled in this class but carries practical compromises on optical quality and low light. Conversely, Olympus 1’s faster aperture and superior optics benefit portraits, landscapes, and general use with richer image quality.

Display and Viewfinder Systems: Composing with Precision and Comfort

Due to reliance on electronic viewfinders (EVFs) and LCDs in bridge cameras, their qualities strongly influence usability.

Olympus’s higher resolution EVF at 1440k dots delivers a bright, detailed preview that facilitates critical focusing and exposure evaluation, especially in bright outdoor conditions where rear screen glare can hamper composition.

The rear LCD screen is touch-enabled on the Olympus - beneficial for intuitive AF point selection and menu navigation. Sony’s HX350 lacks touchscreen functionality, which occasionally complicates rapid AF adjustments during shooting.

Sony’s EVF resolution is markedly lower, resulting in a grainier electronic preview that can be a hindrance in precise framing or manual focusing situations.

Burst Shooting and Buffer: Capturing Action Sequences

Burst shooting performance reflects sensor readout speed, processor throughput, and buffer capacity - important for sports, wildlife, or dynamic street photography.

The HX350’s 10 fps burst outpaces Olympus’s 7 fps, a substantial difference on paper. However, autofocus tracking limitations with Sony reduce the practical advantage; shots tend to quickly lose focus lock on moving subjects. Olympus offers a more consistent AF during bursts but at a slower frame rate.

Testing reveals buffer depths are modest for both, sufficient for bursts lasting only a few seconds before slowdown.

Video Capabilities: Full HD with Limitations

Video remains an important consideration as hybrid photo-video usability expands.

Olympus offers slow-motion modes at reduced resolutions, useful for creative effects but limited in resolution. Both cameras lack mic input, precluding professional audio capture, restricting effective videography mostly to casual use.

Image stabilization effectively reduces handshake, especially critical in telephoto video - the Olympus 1 is commendable in this regard.

Olympus 1 front Olympus 1 screen back Sony HX350 front Sony HX350 screen back

Real-World Image Quality Across Photography Genres

Portraits

• Olympus 1 delivers flattering natural skin tones owing to superior color depth and stable F2.8 aperture enabling soft background separation with its lens.
• Sony HX350’s narrower aperture at tele affects bokeh aesthetics negatively; however, more megapixels offer greater cropping freedom for tight headshots.

Landscapes

• Olympus’s wider dynamic range and 12 MP detail capture better highlight/shadow detail.
• Sony’s higher resolution sensor provides larger image files but with noisier shadow retention; wide-angle at 24 mm is helpful, but more distortion is observed.

Wildlife and Sports

• Sony’s extensive 1200 mm equivalent focal length lens advantageously frames distant subjects.
• Olympus autofocus is generally faster and more reliable but shorter zoom limits reach.
• Higher frame rate on Sony supports sports action, yet AF loss reduces hit rate.

Street and Travel

• Olympus’s compact size and weight promote discreet street shooting and ease of carry during travel.
• Sony’s bulk and weight hinder spontaneity but reward long telephoto reach.

Macro

• Sony HX350’s 1 cm macro focusing is impressive on paper but optical sharpness drops significantly.
• Olympus strikes a balance between sharpness and close focusing, more suited to detailed small subject capture.

Night and Astro

• Olympus’s superior low-light ISO and higher sensor dynamic range translate to clearer night shots.
• Sony struggles beyond ISO 800, limiting night scene usability.

Durability, Battery Life, and Connectivity

• Neither camera offers weather sealing, limiting rugged outdoor professional use.
• Olympus’s battery life is rated at ~410 shots per charge, better than Sony’s 300 shots, a meaningful difference on extended shoots.
• Wireless connectivity is available on Olympus 1, enhancing transfer workflows; Sony HX350 lacks such features.
• Both feature SD card slots; Sony supports Memory Stick Duo, which may be inconvenient.

Workflow, Lens Ecosystem and Price Considerations

As bridge cameras, both come with fixed lenses and as such, do not support interchangeable lens systems, limiting creative extension compared to mirrorless or DSLRs.

• Olympus’s aperture ring provides intuitive control, improving workflow speed for exposure adjustments.
• Sony’s lack of raw support complicates post-processing latitude.
• Currently, Olympus is typically found priced slightly higher than Sony HX350; however, actual cost depends on market availability and deals.

Conclusion: Which Camera Fits Your Photography Needs?

Choose Olympus Stylus 1 If:

• Your priority is image quality under varied lighting, aided by a larger sensor and constant bright aperture.
• You seek manual control and operational speed through tactile dials and touchscreen.
• You prefer balanced versatility for portraits, landscapes, and moderate telephoto shooting.
• You value longer battery life and wireless transfer capabilities.
• Compact size for travel and street photography matters.

Choose Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX350 If:

• You require extreme telephoto reach, up to 1200 mm equivalent, for distant wildlife or sports subjects.
• You prefer a higher resolution sensor for large prints or cropping flexibility.
• You prioritize the fastest possible burst shooting speed for capturing action.
• Size and weight are less of a concern, favoring reach over portability.
• Budget constraints favor a lower-cost model without raw file overhead.

Both cameras exhibit compromises inherent to the small sensor superzoom segment; neither offers pro-grade performance but fulfill distinct enthusiast niches. Your choice should hinge primarily on what balance of telephoto reach, image quality, manual control, and portability aligns with your photographic ambitions.

The above analysis reflects rigorous hands-on tests examining sensor outputs, AF reliability under varied conditions, lens quality through lab charts and field shooting, and user interface navigation. This nuanced comparison aims to guide informed purchasing tailored to real-world photographic needs rather than mere marketing claims.