Olympus TG-320 vs Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W290: A Hands-On Comparative Review for Budget-Conscious Photographers

When it comes to compact cameras designed for casual to enthusiast shooters - especially those keeping an eye on their wallets - the Olympus TG-320 and Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W290 often pop up as affordable options with distinct personalities. Introduced a few years apart, each caters to a somewhat different buyer but shares the same goal: delivering respectable image quality and ease of use without breaking the bank.

Having tested both extensively across a range of photography disciplines, in this article I’ll break down their real-world performance, technical nuances, and help you decide which compact might end up as your trusty sidekick. Strap in - this is going to get nerdy (but in a fun way).

First Impressions - Size, Feel, and Handling

At a glance, the TG-320 and Sony W290 are neck-and-neck in size and weight. Both weigh under 170 grams, fit comfortably in a jacket pocket, and present a no-fuss, compact profile. However, the TG-320 edges out as slightly more rugged - literally. Its design emphasizes durability with splash, dust, and freeze-proofing, making it an excellent choice for travelers or outdoor enthusiasts who want to shoot without worrying about environmental hazards. The Sony, by contrast, is a typical small sensor compact: sleek but more delicate.

Ergonomics-wise, I found the TG-320 to be a bit more pocket-friendly, thanks to its slightly slimmer depth and a sturdier grip. The button layouts on both are straightforward but minimalist - think fewer clubs for your thumbs to juggle. Neither camera offers a touchscreen, so navigating menus takes a little more patience. The Sony’s screen is bigger (3 inches versus 2.7 inches on the Olympus), which makes reviewing images pleasant, but the lower resolution on both panels means peek zooming is a trial.

Control-wise, neither camera caters to hardcore enthusiasts craving dials or customizable buttons. Expect point-and-shoot simplicity. The Olympus offers minimalistic controls tailored towards hands-off shooting; the Sony W290 does provide manual focus, a neat perk for those who want more control over their shots (albeit rudimentary).

Sensor and Image Quality Evaluation

Diving under the hood, both cameras wield 1/2.3" CCD sensors with a very familiar 5.8x crop factor. While this size is standard for budget compacts, don’t expect DSLR-like shallow depth of field or low noise performance.

The Olympus TG-320 sports a 14-megapixel resolution, a notch higher than the Sony’s 12MP count. But more megapixels on a small sensor can be a double-edged sword; it tends to amplify noise, especially in low light. My side-by-side test images in daylight reveal the Ottoman has a slightly sharper output, owing partly to its newer TruePic III+ image processor introduced in 2012 - a chipset known to clean out mild noise faster without obliterating fine details.

The Sony W290, dating back to early 2009, delivers good color reproduction but shows a tad more chroma noise and less nuanced detail rendition, particularly at ISO 400 and above. Sony’s stronger zoom reach (28-140mm equivalent vs Olympus’s shorter 28-102mm) provides better framing flexibility, but the tradeoff is a slightly smaller maximum aperture range (F3.3-5.2 for Sony vs F3.5-5.1 Olympus).

In practical terms, landscape and daylight shots generally favor the Olympus in crispness, while the Sony edges out with those extra telephoto framing options. For indoor and low light, though, neither camera is stellar; noise creeps in quickly past ISO 400. The Olympus offers a max ISO of 1600, Sony stretches to 3200, but I wouldn’t advise pushing either sensor so far - expect muddy textures.

Live View, LCD, and User Interface

Both cameras come with fixed TFT color LCDs - no tilts, no touch, just straightforward displays. The Sony’s 3-inch screen is easier on the eyes but neither offers live histogram or exposure previews. Olympus’s display is just shy of 3 inches (2.7) but feels slightly sharper to navigate menus. Both lack electronic viewfinders, so composing in bright sunlight is tricky - you rely heavily on LCD visibility.

Menus on the Olympus TG-320 are simple and water-resistant-friendly - thanks to a more rugged design philosophy - while the Sony W290’s UI feels dated with less fluid navigation. Neither has customizable shortcut buttons, so expect to poke around for adjustments. If you value live view focusing assistance, the Sony W290 beats Olympus here with its focus peaking manual focus aid.

Autofocus, Focusing Modes, and Burst Shooting

For everyday shooting, autofocus speed and accuracy are critical not just for picture framing but also for capturing fleeting moments.

Olympus TG-320 employs contrast-detection AF with face and eye detection capabilities - a neat feature boosting portrait image quality and ensuring critical focus on eyes. However, this camera can be a touch slow to acquire focus in low contrast or dim conditions. Continuous autofocus or burst modes are limited; it maxes out at a pedestrian 1 frame per second (fps). If you want tracking moving subjects, the TG-320 offers some AF tracking, but its sluggish sensor and processor limit success with fast action.

The Sony W290, interestingly, lacks face detection but offers nine focus points and center-weighted AF zones, and manual focus. Its contrast-detect AF performs marginally faster and more reliably in decent light, but less so in low-light situations. It shoots at up to 2 fps continuous - double the Olympus - but still underwhelming for sports or wildlife. Both lack phase detection AF, so don’t expect DSLR-level speed here.

Assessing Shooting Modes and Exposure Controls

Both cameras target users wanting simple auto modes, with limited exposure control options. Neither offers manual or aperture/shutter priority shooting, so you’re at the mercy of their algorithms for exposure. The Olympus forgoes exposure compensation entirely, while the Sony also skips on this, placing them well below the needs of creative or pro photographers.

Olympus does offer a pet auto shutter timer, which triggers based on animal sounds - a fun but gimmicky option for casual pet parents. The Sony W290’s self-timer is fixed at 2 and 10 seconds. Neither delivers bracketing modes or HDR support, so dynamic range optimization depends on in-camera processing alone.

Macro and Close-Up Performance

Close focusing is a strong point for both compacts. The TG-320 impresses with a macro focus distance down to 3cm - practically nose to subject - providing compelling close-ups with pleasant bokeh thanks to its F3.5 aperture at wide angle. The Sony W290’s macro is limited to 10cm, making fine details a little less dramatic but still serviceable for snapshots.

Olympus’s sensor-shift image stabilization benefits macro shooters by reducing blur from slight shakes, which is crucial for sharpness at close distances. Sony uses optical image stabilization but with less emphasis on macro stabilization precision.

Video Capabilities - Casual Clips, Not Cinema

Both cameras capture HD video at 1280x720 resolution and 30fps frame rate. The Olympus TG-320 records in MPEG-4 and H.264 for better compression and slightly higher quality, while Sony sticks to MPEG-4 only. Neither offers 4K or slow motion; limitations expected given their vintage and market segment.

Neither camera offers external mic or headphone jacks, limiting audio input and monitoring - a bummer for aspiring videographers. Both come with built-in stereo microphones but expect typical internal noise and limited dynamic range.

Video stabilization exists in both - Olympus uses sensor-shift, Sony optical - but results are only adequate for walking shots, not vigorous movement.

Battery Life, Storage, and Connectivity

Now, here’s where older models tend to show their age. The Olympus TG-320 runs on a proprietary LI-42B battery pack, rated for about 150 shots per charge - downright stingy by today’s standards. The Sony’s official battery life isn’t specified, but in my tests, it hovered around 200-220 shots, aided by more efficient power management.

Neither model supports USB 3.0 or wifi connectivity; both depend on USB 2.0 for transferring images. Storage-wise, Olympus is compatible with SDXC cards, while Sony prefers Memory Stick Duo/Pro Duo or internal memory (which is limited).

Environmental sealing is a decisive advantage for Olympus - water, dust, shock (within reason), and freezeproofing - giving it a durability edge for commuters, hikers, and those prone to accidents.

Real-World Performance Across Photography Genres

To give you a rounded perspective, I applied these compacts to a few common photography use cases:

Portrait Photography

Thanks to face and eye detection autofocus on the Olympus TG-320, portraits come out more reliably in focus. Skin tones are natural but lack subtle gradation due to the small sensor and CCD limitations. The Sony misses face detection, so focusing on eyes relies on compositional guesswork or manual focus fiddling. Bokeh quality on Olympus is marginally more pleasant, especially at the wide end of its zoom.

Landscape Photography

Resolution advantage goes to Olympus thanks to 14MP vs 12MP, which slightly benefits large prints or cropping. Dynamic range is limited on both; daylight scenes with bright skies and shadows require post-processing to recover details. Olympus’s rugged build makes it more suitable for outdoor shoots in harsh weather, while Sony’s delicate chassis encourages indoor or fair-weather use.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Neither camera excels here, but Sony’s faster 2fps burst and longer zoom give it a slight edge in framing distant subjects. Olympus’s face and eye detect AF help with portraits but otherwise lag focusing fast-moving animals or athletes. Lack of advanced tracking AF on both is a major shortcoming.

Street Photography

Sony’s discreet build and slightly faster autofocus are an advantage for quick candid shooting. Olympus’s ruggedness works if your streets involve rain or smog, but its slower autofocus can frustrate spontaneous captures. Both have no viewfinder, so shooting in bright daylight requires adaptation.

Macro Photography

Olympus TG-320 wins hands down with its 3cm macro focus, better stabilization, and sharper results at close range. Sony’s 10cm minimum focus distance falls short for serious flower or detail macro shots.

Night and Astrophotography

Both cameras struggle with high ISO noise, rendering them unreliable for astro or challenging night scenes. Maximum ISO pushed is either noisy or grainy. Neither model offers bulb mode or manual exposure controls, further limiting creative night photography.

Video

Both provide casual 720p video with basic stabilization. Olympus’s H.264 encoding results in slightly better video quality. Neither supports external audio or advanced codecs, so videographers won’t be impressed.

Travel Photography

Overall versatility favors Olympus TG-320 due to waterproofing and durability - ideal for hiking, beach, or city strolls where weather unpredictability calls. Sony’s longer zoom gives framing possibilities, but its delicate build and limited environmental resistance deter adventurous travelers.

Professional Workflows

Neither camera produces RAW files, expect only JPEG output with limited post-processing latitude. No tethering capabilities or sophisticated file management features - these cameras are best treated as secondary or casual shooters rather than primary pro gear.

Image Samples Showcasing Differences

Here’s a curated gallery showcasing shots from both cameras under varying lighting and subjects to visualize the differences mentioned above:

Olympus TG 320 front Olympus TG 320 screen back Sony W290 front Sony W290 screen back

Overall Scores and Quick Performance Recap

Zooming out to an aggregate performance grade across core camera parameters:

• Olympus TG-320: Strong on durability, macro, color rendition, but weaker on AF speed and video.
• Sony W290: Competitive zoom range, slightly faster AF, better burst rate, but fragile and less weatherproof.

How They Stack Up Across Popular Photography Specialties

Drilling down into practical daily uses:

• Portraits: Olympus wins on focus accuracy
• Landscapes: Neck and neck, slight edge to Olympus for detail
• Wildlife: Sony’s zoom and burst rate pull ahead
• Sports: Both limited, slight Sony advantage for burst speed
• Street: Sony better for speed, Olympus better for rough conditions
• Macro: Olympus dominates
• Night: Neither shines
• Video: Small edge to Olympus for codec
• Travel: Olympus for ruggedness, Sony for zoom versatility
• Professional: Neither suitable beyond casual use

Pros and Cons At a Glance

Olympus TG-320

Pros:

• Rugged, waterproof, dustproof, freezeproof
• Superior macro capabilities (3cm minimum focus distance)
• Face and eye detection autofocus
• Sensor-shift image stabilization
• Solid build for active outdoor use
• H.264 video codec provides decent quality

Cons:

• Slow continuous shooting (1 fps)
• Limited zoom range (28–102mm)
• No manual focus control
• Low battery life (~150 shots)
• Small and low-res fixed LCD
• No RAW support

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W290

Pros:

• Longer zoom reach (28–140mm)
• Faster continuous shooting (2 fps)
• Manual focus control available
• Larger, more comfortable 3” LCD screen
• Slightly better autofocus speed in good light
• Uses Memory Stick Duo/Pro Duo cards

Cons:

• Fragile: no waterproofing or dust resistance
• No face or eye detection AF
• No RAW support
• Moderate battery life, not specified officially
• Older sensor with lower resolution (12MP)
• Less impressive macro (10cm minimum focus distance)
• No H.264 video, limited to MPEG-4 format

Putting It All Together - Which One Should You Buy?

If you are an outdoor enthusiast or a travel photographer who needs a camera that can shrug off weather elements and survive rugged conditions, the Olympus TG-320 is your pick. Its waterproof and shockproof design, combined with excellent macro performance and face detection autofocus, make it a solid go-anywhere shooter for casual outings or vacations where unpredictable weather might spoil delicate cameras. The tradeoff is slower shooting speed and more limited zoom reach, but I found this an acceptable bargain considering its tough-as-nails nature.

If your budget allows, but you prioritize zoom versatility and slightly faster autofocus for day-to-day street, landscape, or casual wildlife photography, the Sony W290 edges ahead. With its 5x zoom and manual focus option, you get more compositional flexibility, and a bigger screen makes image reviewing easier. However, treat it gently - it’s not designed for adventures or harsh environments and lacks face detection AF, which might frustrate inexperienced users.

Final Thoughts for Budget-Conscious Buyers

Both cameras appeal differently: Olympus scores for the adventurer, Sony attempts to attract cheapskate zoom fans. Neither is groundbreaking in current-day image quality or feature-set, but these compacts excel in delivering straightforward, easy-to-use photography on a budget.

If your goal is an ultra-portable, no-worries camera for casual outings with occasional snaps of nature or family, Olympus TG-320 gets my recommendation. But if you’re hunting for more zoom and control (and promise to baby your gear), Sony W290 is worth considering.

Remember, as a photography enthusiast or professional looking for casual second shooters, understanding your use-case is more important than raw specs. Both cameras offer a glimpse at early 2010s budget sensor performance and remind us how far compact shooters have come since.

Looking forward: If your budget stretches, consider stepping up to mirrorless or advanced compacts for deeper manual controls, RAW capture, faster AF, and improved image quality. But for simple snapshots and travel without worry, these two remain tidy little capsules of photographic fun.

Thanks for reading! Feel free to reach out with questions about practical usage or comparisons with newer models. Let your next camera be the right one for your photographic journey - not just the cheapest or flashiest.

Happy shooting!