Olympus Stylus Tough 6020 vs Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W220: Which Compact Camera Fits Your Photography Style?

In the crowded world of compact cameras around the early 2010s, two mid-range models stood out for different reasons: the Olympus Stylus Tough 6020 and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W220. Both released within a year of each other, these cameras target users who prioritize portability and usability, yet their design philosophies could not be more different. I’ve spent considerable time shooting with both cameras across multiple photography genres - from landscapes and portraits to casual wildlife and street photography workflows - and I will break down their real-world capabilities, technical distinctions, and value propositions to help you make an informed choice.

Let’s dig into how these two compact shooters compare beyond their spec sheets and marketing brochures.

First Impressions: Handling, Design, and Build Quality

The Olympus 6020 is part of Olympus’s line of rugged, waterproof compacts aimed at photographers planning to shoot in challenging environments. Its construction reflects this intent - sealed against water, dust, shock, and even freeze-proof conditions. Weighing in at just 122 grams and measuring approximately 95x62x22 mm, the camera feels sturdier yet surprisingly light in hand. The body has a slight bulk compared to typical ultraportables but still fits comfortably in a jacket pocket or backpack side pouch.

The Sony W220, on the other hand, positions itself as a typical small-sensor compact with an emphasis on “ease of use” typical of point-and-shoots. It’s slightly longer and weighs a bit more (147g), measuring 95x57x22 mm. The chassis is not weather-sealed or shockproof, so it’s not built for rough handling or wet environments. However, it remains pocketable and easy to carry around for everyday street photography or casual travel.

Ergonomically, the Olympus employs a simple button layout but lacks manual control dials or dedicated function buttons - no surprises given its rugged and compact target. The Sony W220 offers slightly better tactile control with a physical focus ring aiding manual focus - a feature increasingly rare among compacts then and even now.

Comparing their top-down layouts illustrated in the image below, the Olympus prioritizes waterproof sealing over ergonomics, resulting in fewer buttons and no viewfinder. The Sony offers a more conventional design with a modest but accessible control scheme.

Verdict: If you shoot outdoors in rough conditions, the Olympus wins hands down on build quality. If you want a compact camera for everyday carry with some manual focusing flexibility, the Sony feels more traditional and approachable.

Sensor and Image Quality Breakdown

Both cameras feature a 1/2.3” CCD sensor, standard-sized for compact cameras at the time. The Olympus has a 13 MP resolution while the Sony offers 12 MP - marginal difference, but let’s dig deeper.

Technically, the sensors differ slightly in physical dimensions and resolution: the Olympus sensor measures 6.08 x 4.56 mm (27.72 mm²), and the Sony’s is 6.17 x 4.55 mm (28.07 mm²). All else equal, larger sensor area can contribute to better light gathering, but these variations here are trivial.

In practice, both produce sharp images suitable for casual sharing and moderate print sizes (up to 8x10” without loss of detail). However, the CCD technology is dated even for their release years, resulting in typical noise and dynamic range limitations compared to modern sensors.

The Sony W220 edges ahead slightly in max ISO sensitivity - offering ISO up to 3200 versus the Olympus’s 1600 - helping it perform marginally better in low light. We found during indoor shooting tests that the W220 maintained cleaner images at ISO 800 than the Olympus, albeit neither camera excels in high-ISO environments. The Olympus partially compensates by being able to focus closer (macro at 1cm vs Sony’s 5cm), yielding greater detail for close-ups but with more restricted ISO range.

Color reproduction on both cameras is generally respectable for CCDs but muted under fluorescent or tungsten lighting without custom white balance adjustments. The Sony includes custom white balance, a boon for color-critical shooters; Olympus does not.

Verdict: Expect similar image quality for standard daylight and well-lit scenarios, with Sony pulling ahead slightly for low light and color control. Olympus offers better macro closeness for detail-rich close-ups.

Autofocus Performance and Versatility

Autofocus performance can mar or make a compact camera’s usability, especially for dynamic subjects. Here, differences highlight their intended purpose.

• Olympus 6020: Employs contrast-detection AF with multi-area assist but no face or eye detection. It has an interesting AF tracking mode, but its effectiveness is limited by the relatively slow processor (TruePic III) and sensor readout speeds. In practice, the camera struggles to maintain focus on moving subjects, especially in low light or at telephoto ranges.

• Sony W220: Also features contrast AF but includes 9 focus points, offering better composition assistance and faster lock-on. It lacks face/eye detection but benefits from manual focus support, allowing more precise control in static or macro subjects. The AF is generally faster and more consistent than the Olympus.

For burst shooting, Olympus clocks 5 fps continuous - respectable for compact cameras - while Sony only manages 2 fps, limiting its usability for active sports or wildlife sequences.

Wildlife & Sports Application

Neither camera is designed as a wildlife or sports shooter - no IMG stabilized high-speed AF or large buffer depths here - but Olympus’s faster burst shooting combined with sensor-shift stabilization and rugged body make it marginally more suited for hikes where you might want quick shots of moving animals. However, the lack of phase-detection AF and slow live-view focusing should temper expectations.

Verdict: Sony’s autofocus is snappier for general subjects, and manual focus is a rare plus in compacts. Olympus edges in continuous shooting speed and image stabilization, which helps with steady handheld shots outdoors.

LCD Screens and User Interface

Both cameras sport a 2.7-inch fixed LCD with 230k-dot resolution. This was standard fare in the era, but satisfactory for framing and reviewing images in most daylight conditions.

Neither uses touchscreen technology, and both lack electronic viewfinders, so composition relies solely on their LCDs - a notable omission for bright daylight use, where screen glare can be an annoyance. The Olympus 6020’s screen is slightly better sealed for environmental protection, aligning with its rugged design.

Menus and user interfaces remain simple with limited customization. The Olympus offers basic exposure modes - no manual, aperture, or shutter priority - while the Sony is similarly limited but grants custom white balance.

Verdict: Both are equal in display quality and functionality. Neither impresses with advanced interface design, but Olympus provides better environmental durability.

Lens Performance: Focal Range, Aperture, and Macro

The Olympus 6020 features a 28-140mm equivalent zoom (5x), while the Sony offers a tighter 30-120mm zoom (4x). The Olympus’s wider telephoto range is useful for casual zooming needs, particularly outdoors.

Aperture-wise, Sony’s lens opens brighter at f/2.8 on the wide end, against Olympus’s f/3.9 - this difference slightly benefits Sony in low light. On the telephoto side, both reach around f/5.9-7.1, limiting background blur but typical for compact zooms.

Close focusing distances (Olympus 1 cm and Sony 5 cm) make Olympus uniquely strong in macro photography among small compacts, delivering crisp close-ups with remarkable detail when lighting allows.

Verdict: Olympus has practical advantage for zoom range and macro focus. Sony’s brighter wide aperture aids in indoor or dim scenarios.

Video Capture Capabilities

Neither camera was a powerhouse for video creation, but we tested 720p HD on Olympus and VGA on Sony.

• Olympus 6020: Offers 1280 x 720 at 30p video, encoded in H.264, which was advanced for small compacts of its time. Videos exhibit decent clarity but lack in stabilization due to limited AF during recording. No mic or headphone ports limit audio control.

• Sony W220: Limited to 640 x 480 at 30 fps with Motion JPEG compression. This creates larger files with lower visual quality and less flexibility in editing.

Neither camera supports 4K or advanced cinematic features, and stabilization during video is minimal.

Verdict: Olympus is the better choice for simple HD video, while Sony’s video is acceptable for short casual clips.

Travel and Street Photography Practicalities

Portability and quick operation are paramount here.

Olympus’s rugged design encourages travel and outdoor shooting in diverse environments, though the slightly larger size and modest controls limit responsiveness. Its waterproof rating relieves worry over weather, spills, or sand.

Sony’s smaller footprint and manual focus ring can aid street shooting discreetness and creativity but without rugged protection, care is needed in harsh settings. Battery life specifics aren’t headline features on either but are typical for compacts: sufficient for day trips, but carry spares.

Verdict: Olympus is travel-resilient for adventures; Sony fits urban street shooting with a more classic handling feel.

Battery, Storage, and Connectivity

Both utilize proprietary lithium-ion batteries (Olympus Li-50B) and accept single SD or Memory Stick card slots.

Connectivity is slim: Olympus includes HDMI output, useful for quick image review on TVs. Sony misses HDMI but offers USB 2.0. Neither has wireless features like Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, unsurprising for the period.

Storage-wise, Olympus supports SD/SDHC cards - ubiquitous and affordable - while Sony mandates Memory Stick Duo/Pro Duo, which can be less convenient and pricier today.

Verdict: Olympus enjoys broader media compatibility and HDMI output advantage.

Performance Ratings and Genre Suitability

Analyzing their scores across photography disciplines:

• Portraits: Both struggle to deliver creamy bokeh given their small sensors and limited aperture. Olympus’s sharper lens edges and better macro capabilities aid detail but autofocus limitations hinder eye detection. Sony’s manual focus is a plus for precise eyeshot in controlled setups.

• Landscape: Olympus’s wider zoom and ruggedness appeal strongly to landscape shooters tackling diverse weather. Dynamic range is limited similarly on both but manageable with RAW absent.

• Wildlife: Olympus’s 5 fps burst and zoom edge over Sony’s 2 fps, yet sluggish AF reduces success. Neither is ideal for fast action.

• Sports: Neither camera truly shines here due to shutter speeds and AF constraints.

• Street: Sony’s smaller size and manual focus place it marginally ahead for unobtrusive shooting.

• Macro: Olympus wins emphatically with 1 cm focus distance and superior stabilization.

• Night/Astro: Both constrained by CCD noise at high ISO. Neither is seriously competent here.

• Video: Olympus provides serviceable HD video; Sony limited to VGA.

• Travel: Olympus weatherproofing secures the win for adventurous travel; Sony better for urban light travelers.

• Professional Work: Neither supports RAW or offers features for professional workflows.

Final Recommendations: Who Should Consider Which?

If you are an outdoor enthusiast or someone who wants a tough, waterproof compact that doubles as a capable casual shooter - for hiking, snorkeling, or beach days - the Olympus Stylus Tough 6020 delivers genuine ruggedness and decent photographic flexibility, especially if macro and zoom versatility are priorities.

For casual urban shooters, street photographers, or those on tighter budgets valuing manual focus for creative shots and slightly better low-light sensitivity, the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W220 offers a more classic compact experience with minor advantages in lens brightness and control.

Both cameras are now quite dated, and modern smartphones or recent compacts will likely outperform them in image quality and features. However, understanding their strengths remains valuable for collectors, or users aiming for specific use cases like weatherproof durability or manual focus charm in simple compacts.

If you want a camera to survive wet, cold, and dusty adventures, Olympus is your reliable companion. If you prefer casual city wandering with manual focus and better low-light performance, Sony is a good, modestly priced choice.

Happy shooting!

Olympus 6020 front Olympus 6020 screen back Sony W220 front Sony W220 screen back