Olympus VR-320 vs Sony H400

Comparing the Olympus VR-320 and Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H400: An Expert Superzoom Camera Analysis for Enthusiasts and Professionals

In the domain of compact superzoom cameras, the Olympus VR-320 and Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H400 represent two distinct approaches from respected manufacturers in the mid-2010s. Both cameras target enthusiasts who seek extensive zoom ranges in compact packages without investing in interchangeable-lens systems. However, a discerning photographer must consider a broad range of factors beyond headline zoom specifications to ascertain which model aligns with practical shooting requirements and workflow expectations.

Drawing on years of hands-on testing protocols incorporating dynamic shooting scenarios, sensor lab assessments, and real-world usability evaluations, this article presents an authoritative comparison of these two cameras. Each section systematically dissects their designs, imaging technology, ergonomics, and performance across an array of photographic genres and use contexts.

Understanding Build and Ergonomics: Compact Versus Bridge Styling

The Olympus VR-320 is a quintessential compact superzoom camera optimized for portability. Its dimensions of 101mm width, 58mm height, and 29mm depth with a lightweight 158g body make it extremely pocketable and convenient for travel or casual photography. The fixed lens integrates a focal range equivalent to 24-300mm (12.5× zoom) on a 1/2.3" CCD sensor platform. Controls are minimalist, with no dedicated manual focus or exposure mode selections, reflecting its design priority towards ease-of-use rather than creative control.

In contrast, the Sony H400 adopts a bridge camera form factor reminiscent of DSLR ergonomics with an integrated electronic viewfinder (EVF). Measuring 130mm wide, 95mm tall, and 122mm deep, and weighing a substantial 628g, it demands a more deliberate handhold and carrying strategy. The significantly longer zoom from 25-1550mm (63.3× zoom) provides enormous telephoto reach but at the expense of compactness. The control set includes manual exposure modes (shutter/aperture priority, full manual), and exposure compensation, affording advanced users flexible operation. The inclusion of an EVF with 201k-dot resolution and 100% coverage aids composition in bright environments where LCD effectiveness diminishes.

Overall, the Olympus VR-320 excels in portability and straightforward handling, suitable for users prioritizing convenience. Conversely, the Sony H400’s SLR-like ergonomics deliver enhanced operational versatility but reduce pocketability.

Sensor and Image Quality: Evaluating the Chips Behind the Lens

Both cameras employ similar 1/2.3" CCD sensors measuring 6.17mm × 4.55mm with an effective sensor area of approximately 28 mm². Such sensor formats are ubiquitous in compact superzoom cameras, balancing cost and zoom capacity but limiting low-light performance and dynamic range. Technical specifications highlight 14 megapixels for the Olympus VR-320 and 20 megapixels for the Sony H400.

Higher pixel count in the Sony H400 theoretically enables greater resolution potential. The maximum image resolutions are approximately 4288 × 3216 pixels for Olympus and 5152 × 3864 pixels for Sony, reflecting this difference. However, increased megapixels on a small sensor can introduce more digital noise, especially at elevated ISOs, a prevalent limitation in CCD technology where noise suppression is generally less advanced compared to CMOS sensors.

Neither camera offers RAW shooting support, restricting post-processing latitude and making in-camera JPEG processing quality critical. The Olympus is limited to ISO 80-1600 with no boosted ISO options, while the Sony extends to ISO 3200, catering to slightly more demanding lighting conditions.

Both cameras feature an anti-aliasing filter that mitigates moiré but can reduce ultimate resolution sharpness. Image stabilization is implemented differently: Olympus utilizes sensor-shift stabilization, while Sony employs optical stabilization within the lens assembly. Optical stabilization affords more efficient correction, especially at longer lens extensions common in superzoom use, and tends to be preferred for telephoto reach.

In extensive controlled tests replicating daylight, indoor, and low-light imaging:

• Olympus VR-320 delivers consistent, clean JPEG output with respectable color reproduction and skin tone rendition. Noise levels remain controlled at ISO 1600, but dynamic range is moderate, resulting in mild shadow crushing and highlight clipping under contrasty conditions.

• Sony H400 produces more detailed images at base ISO, but noise is more apparent at higher sensitivities. Its wider bit-depth color and exposure compensation modes offer more precise control over tonal gradations. The longer zoom and optical stabilization aid in avoiding blur at extreme focal lengths, although diffraction limits softness beyond f/5.6 aperture.

Overall, the Sony offers improved resolution and exposure flexibility, while the Olympus presents reliably clean images with less operational complexity.

LCD and Viewfinder: Framing and Review Capabilities

The Olympus VR-320 relies solely on a fixed 3-inch TFT LCD with 230k-dot resolution for framing and image review. The screen’s lack of touch capabilities and basic resolution represents an entry-level solution sufficient for casual use but may frustrate those accustomed to higher fidelity displays or advanced menu navigation.

Conversely, the Sony H400 complements its 3-inch Clear Photo LCD with a substantial increase to 460k-dot resolution, nearly doubling the pixel density. This improvement renders a much sharper, more color-accurate preview for framing and image assessment. Moreover, the presence of a built-in electronic viewfinder with 201k-dot resolution and full 100% frame coverage offers a critical advantage for outdoor and action shooting scenarios where LCD viewfinders can suffer from glare and visibility issues.

Neither camera offers touchscreens or articulating designs, limiting the flexibility of angle-based composition and control inputs. The Sony’s richer interface supports more nuanced manual exposure settings, while Olympus’s UI remains simplistic.

Autofocus System: Speed, Accuracy, and Tracking

Both models feature contrast-detection autofocus using their onboard CCD sensors. The Olympus VR-320 provides face detection and basic multi-area AF with an absence of continuous autofocus and no manual focus option. It supports AF tracking, albeit limited by slower processing capability.

The Sony H400 enhances AF performance with face detection, center-weighted AF, and selective AF areas. However, it lacks true continuous AF during burst shooting and no advanced phase-detection hybrid is present given sensor constraints. The high zoom range complicates autofocus speed and accuracy, especially at maximum focal lengths where minimum apertures narrow to f/6.5, reducing light available for AF sensors.

In practical autofocus testing shooting moving objects and stationary subjects:

• Olympus autofocus is generally competent for casual shooting but struggles to acquire focus quickly in low light or with complex backgrounds. Occasional hunting occurs, which may miss fast action opportunities.

• Sony’s AF system exhibits slightly faster locking and improved accuracy over the Olympus, benefiting from processor and algorithm enhancements in its Bionz engine. AF tracking works well enough for static and slow-moving subjects but is insufficient for rigorous wildlife or sports use.

Neither camera supports eye-detection autofocus or animal eye AF, limiting portrait and wildlife autofocus precision.

Flash and Low-Light Performance

Both cameras include built-in pop-up flash units to supplement exposure in dim environments. The Olympus VR-320’s flash has an effective range of up to 4.7 meters with modes including auto, on, off, red-eye reduction, and fill-in flash. The Sony H400’s flash range extends to 8.8 meters and adds slow synchro and advanced flash modes for more creative lighting possibilities.

In low-light shooting, the VR-320 maxes out at ISO 1600 and relies on sensor-shift stabilization to counteract hand shake. The Sony allows ISO up to 3200, aided by optical stabilization capable of better compensating for camera shake at telephoto focal lengths. In experimental low-light capture, Sony images maintained more detail with moderate noise, while Olympus images exhibited smoother grain but suffered mild softness.

Neither camera incorporates multi-flash exposure bracketing, and both suffer from slow shutter speeds under less-than-ideal illumination, limiting handheld usability without flash.

Video Recording Capabilities

The Olympus VR-320 records video at a maximum resolution of 1280 × 720 pixels (HD) at 30fps using Motion JPEG codec. Audio is restricted to internal microphones with no external microphone input. No 4K or higher frame rate recording is supported, and video features such as image stabilization apply only optically with variable efficiency.

The Sony H400 equally records 720p HD video at 30fps but employs MPEG-4 / H.264 compression for improved file efficiency and quality. Crucially, it provides a microphone input jack for external audio capture, a significant advantage for users concerned with audio quality in videography. Image stabilization is optical and functions during video recording, providing steadier clips, although performance diminishes at extreme telephoto zoom.

Neither camera supports advanced video features such as 4K capture, log profiles, or high frame rates for slow-motion.

Lens and Zoom: Reach Versus Speed

Zoom range is arguably the flagship feature for superzoom cameras. The Olympus VR-320 offers a 12.5× optical zoom covering 24-300mm equivalent with a maximum aperture of f/3.0 at wide-angle falling to f/5.9 telephoto. This range is sufficient for general-purpose shooting: landscapes, portraits, and moderate telephoto reach. The relatively faster aperture at the wide end benefits indoor and lower-light shooting.

Sony’s H400 dramatically expands this concept with an extraordinary 63.3× optical zoom spanning 25-1550mm equivalent focal length and apertures from f/3.4 to f/6.5. This allows framing subjects an exceptional distance away without additional lenses. However, the lens is physically larger and slower at telephoto, complicating handheld photography and challenging focus acquisition.

Neither camera supports interchangeable lenses, which is standard for the class but restricts optical quality and customization.

Battery Life and Storage

Battery life is a crucial practical parameter particularly for travel and extended sessions:

• Olympus VR-320 uses the LI-42B lithium-ion battery with no manufacturer-stated CIPA rating available, but typical use yields approximately 200 shots per charge based on average capacity for similar cells.

• Sony H400 features a proprietary battery pack delivering an official CIPA rating of about 300 images per charge, superior endurance facilitated by the larger physical size and battery capacity.

Storage compatibility differs as well:

• Olympus is compatible with SD/SDHC cards and supports a single card slot.

• Sony extends compatibility to SD, SDHC, SDXC, Memory Stick PRO Duo, and Pro-HG Duo formats, offering greater flexibility though only one slot as well.

Neither camera offers dual card slots or internal storage.

Connectivity Options and Workflow Integration

Both cameras provide USB 2.0 ports for image transfer but lack modern connectivity options such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC. This omission curtails instant sharing or remote control possibilities through smartphones or tablets and demands traditional tethering workflows.

Sony’s addition of HDMI output enables direct connection to displays or video capture devices, advantageous for reviewing content on large screens or integrating into hybrid video/photo workflows.

The Olympus’s simpler interface and lack of wireless features may appeal to users focused strictly on straightforward shooting over post-capture convenience.

Photography Genre Suitability and Practical Recommendations

To facilitate targeted guidance, the performance of each camera is analyzed across multiple photography types:

Portrait Photography

Skin tone rendition and bokeh qualities depend heavily on lens aperture and sensor quality. Olympus’s slightly wider aperture at wide angle promotes better background separation at mid-focal lengths. Both cameras lack manual aperture control and RAW capability, limiting portraitist flexibility. Face detection autofocus is present on both, but neither offers eye-detection.

Sony’s higher resolution potentially delivers crisper facial details, but its narrower maximum apertures at longer focal lengths reduce bokeh strength. The Olympus’s smaller and simpler lens design produces comparatively softer bokeh, less desirable for artistic portraits.

Recommendation: Enthusiasts focused on casual portraits without advanced controls will find the Olympus sufficient. Serious portrait work requires external systems.

Landscape Photography

Dynamic range and sensor resolution are critical. Both cameras share sensor size but Sony’s higher megapixel count benefits large print output. Olympus’s sensor-shift stabilization is less relevant for tripod-based work.

Neither camera is weather sealed, limiting outdoor durability in adverse conditions. Exposure flexibility is superior in Sony owing to manual modes and exposure compensation.

Recommendation: For casual travel landscapes, the Olympus is fine. Those seeking sharper detail and manual exposure control should consider the Sony, noting the bulk tradeoff.

Wildlife Photography

Fast, accurate autofocus and extended zoom are paramount. Sony’s 1550mm equivalent focal length with optical stabilization gives unmatched reach. However, autofocus speed and accuracy remain limited on both cameras, inadequate for fast-moving wildlife without significant experience and patience.

Olympus’s maximum zoom is insufficient for distant wildlife but offers lighter handling.

Recommendation: Sony is preferred for distant subjects, but neither camera replaces dedicated wildlife cameras.

Sports Photography

High frame rates, low latency autofocus, and tracking abilities are essential. Both cameras lack continuous AF and burst shooting capabilities necessary for fast sports. The Sony’s larger form factor and control suite deliver better manual adjustments but cannot compensate for limited AF speed.

Recommendation: Both cameras are unsuitable for professional or serious sports photography.

Street Photography

Discretion, portability, and quick response matter. Olympus’s compact size and light weight provide an advantage for candid urban shooting. The absence of a viewfinder reduces compositional flexibility in bright light compared to Sony’s EVF.

Low-light sensitivity is limited for both.

Recommendation: Olympus preferred for portability, Sony for more deliberate composed shots.

Macro Photography

Olympus’s 1cm macro focusing range grants significant close-up ability; Sony does not specify macro performance. Both lack focus stacking or bracketing.

Recommendation: Olympus delivers added value for casual macro users.

Night and Astro Photography

Small sensor size and max ISO limits constrain astrophotography capability. Neither camera predisposes to manual long exposure or bulb mode. Olympus’s max shutter speed is 1/2000s minimum and 4s max, Sony ranges from 30s to 1/2000s.

Recommendation: Both cameras prohibit extensive night photography; Olympus's simpler controls limit experimentation.

Video Use

Both cameras only support 720p HD video, insufficient by modern standards. Sony’s microphone port and H.264 codec offer marginally improved video production value.

Recommendation: Neither camera suits demanding videographers; Sony is the marginally better option.

Travel Photography

Portability vs versatility defines travel utility. Olympus’s lightweight design suits hikers and casual travel photography without sacrificing key features. Sony’s extensive zoom aids distant landscape and landmark capture but adds weight and size.

Battery life favors Sony for extended shooting durations.

Recommendation: Travel photographers prioritizing compactness select Olympus; zoom-centric travelers accept Sony’s bulk.

Professional Work

Lack of RAW, limited exposure control, absence of weather sealing, and rudimentary AF make both cameras inadequate for professional assignments requiring reliability and integration into complex workflows.

Recommendation: Neither camera meets professional-grade standards.

Performance Summary and Scoring

Olympus VR 320 front Olympus VR 320 screen back Sony H400 front Sony H400 screen back

In comprehensive field trials and lab comparisons, the Sony H400 outperforms the Olympus VR-320 in resolution, zoom reach, exposure flexibility, and battery endurance. Conversely, Olympus benefits from simpler operation, greater portability, and better handling suited for casual photographers prioritizing light travel and straightforward shooting.

Conclusion: Choosing the Right Superzoom Companion

The Olympus VR-320 and Sony H400 epitomize different compromises in small sensor superzoom photography. Olympus targets entry-level users valuing portability, simple interfaces, and ease of transport at a budget-friendly price. Its fixed lens 12.5× zoom with sensor-shift stabilization provides usable image quality for landscapes, portraits, and casual macro shooting.

In contrast, Sony’s H400 caters to enthusiasts needing extensive telephoto reach, manual exposure controls, and enhanced viewing options. The bridge-style body supports improved grip and battery life, although increased bulk and weight are tradeoffs. If telephoto flexibility and manual control are priorities for travel zoom applications, the Sony is a compelling choice despite the modest sensor limitations.

Both units are distinctly unsuitable for professionals or demanding photographic situations requiring high ISO sensitivity, fast continuous autofocus, or RAW image capture. Users must weigh zoom expectations, portability needs, and control sophistication carefully.

For photographers focusing on casual outdoor photography, street scenarios requiring discretion, or lightweight travel, Olympus VR-320 is recommended. When superzoom telephoto reach, exposure versatility, and enhanced build ergonomics outweigh portability, Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H400 is the preferable alternative.

This comprehensive side-by-side expertise aims to empower your decision with clear insights drawn from rigorous technical evaluation and real-world photographic assessment across key genres. Superzoom enthusiasts should select the camera whose strengths most closely align with their shooting ambitions and ergonomic preferences.