Olympus XZ-1 vs Sony A390: An Expert’s Take on Two Distinct Classic Cameras

When diving into photographic gear, sometimes comparing apples to oranges makes more sense than expected. At first glance, the Olympus XZ-1 and Sony Alpha DSLR-A390 might seem oddly matched - one’s a compact high-end point-and-shoot, the other an entry-level DSLR - but that's precisely what makes this comparison fascinating. Each camera targets different user habits, shooting styles, and creative aspirations. Having thoroughly tested both cameras extensively in real-world conditions and lab environments over the years, I’m here to help you understand what strengths and compromises each offers, and which one might be the ideal fit for your photographic journey.

Before we begin peeling back layers, take a moment to check out their size and ergonomics side-by-side:

Sensor Size and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

The difference in sensor technology between these two bodies is a primary consideration. The Olympus XZ-1 packs a 1/1.63-inch CCD sensor boasting a resolution of 10 megapixels, with a sensor area of about 44.87 mm². By contrast, the Sony A390 houses a much larger APS-C size CCD sensor - approximately 23.5 x 15.7 mm, which gives it a hefty 368.95 mm² sensor area and a resolution of 14 megapixels.

Why does that matter? Larger sensors generally mean better noise control at high ISOs, greater dynamic range, and more flexibility in post-processing. The Sony comfortably outperforms the Olympus here, scoring an impressive 66 on DxO Mark compared to Olympus’s 34. That’s a considerable difference - low light images are cleaner, and you’ll get more shadow and highlight recovery with the Sony.

I’ve shot landscapes and portraits outdoors with both, pushing ISO sensitivity for dusk or dimly lit interior shots, and the Sony consistently delivers smoother, more detailed files. Olympus’s max native ISO of 6400 is great on paper, but usable image quality drops sharply beyond ISO 400-800, while the A390 maintains cleaner files up to ISO 1600-3200.

On color depth and dynamic range:

• Sony’s sensor offers about 22.5 bits of color depth and 11.5 stops dynamic range.

• Olympus’s sensor has 18.8 bits color depth and 10.4 stops dynamic range.

These differences manifest as more nuanced color gradations and better retention of highlight and shadow detail in the Sony. For critical landscape or professional portrait work, that’s a compelling advantage.

Body Design and Controls: Compact Classic vs. DSLR Presence

Moving on to how these feel in hand and function day-to-day.

The Olympus XZ-1 dazzles with its pocket-friendly compactness: measuring 111 x 65 x 42 mm and weighing just 275 grams, it fits conveniently in a jacket pocket - perfect for street or travel photographers who prize discreetness and portability. Its retro styling combined with manual control dials evokes a playful yet serious enthusiast vibe.

Conversely, the Sony A390 is a proper DSLR, measuring 128 x 97 x 86 mm and weighing nearly twice as much at 549 grams. It’s a bulkier presence, with a pronounced grip and robust plastic construction designed to mimic pro handling ergonomics. The solid-button layout, along with its tilting 2.7-inch LCD, delivers a more traditional shooting experience aimed at DSLR beginners looking to grow.

The Olympus’s 3-inch OLED fixed screen, while slightly smaller in resolution (614K dots), offers excellent contrast and visibility even in bright conditions owing to the OLED panel technology. The Sony’s screen is tilt-enabled, providing compositional flexibility in awkward angles but with lower resolution and no touchscreen interactivity.

Personally, I prefer the Olympus’s cleaner, sharper display for quick framing and review. But the Sony’s tilting screen is a useful feature if you shoot a lot at odd elevations or crouched down.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance: Quickness and Accuracy

For autofocus, these cameras rely on very different technologies.

• Olympus’s XZ-1 has an 11-point contrast-detection autofocus system with face detection but lacks continuous AF during burst mode.

• Sony’s A390 sports a 9-point phase-detection AF system (typical of DSLRs) with multi-area AF and selective zone options, plus continuous AF capabilities.

In practice, the Sony’s phase-detection system delivers faster and more reliable autofocus acquisition, especially for moving subjects and live view. I found that tracking action - whether a child running or a pet in motion - significantly favors the Sony, with fewer out-of-focus shots.

Continuous burst rates reflect their purposes:

• Olympus: 2 frames per second (fps), suited for casual shooting or slow-moving subjects.

• Sony: 3 fps, respectable but not ultra-high speed; still better suited for sports and wildlife snaps at this price.

The Olympus introduces sensor-shift image stabilization, which works well for static subjects and hand-held low-light shooting (though not perfect for major shake), whereas Sony relies on sensor-based stabilization support in lenses (SteadyShot), dependent on the glass used.

For me, the Sony’s autofocus implementation trumps the Olympus in action or wildlife scenes, while Olympus’s focus precision shines beautifully in macro shots and stationary portraits.

Lens Ecosystem and Versatility: Fixed Lens vs. Interchangeable System

This is a critical distinction. The Olympus sports a fixed 28–112mm f/1.8–2.5 zoom lens - fast and bright for a compact camera - offering moderate telephoto reach (equivalent to ~126–504 mm in 35mm format) courtesy of its 4.5x focal length multiplier. It’s excellent for portraits and street shooting with decent bokeh due to the wide maximum apertures.

On the other hand, Sony’s Alpha A390 uses the Minolta/Sony A-mount system, compatible with over 140 lenses, from consumer zooms to professional primes and telephotos.

That means you can tailor your setup for virtually every photographic discipline: ultra-wide landscapes, macro photography, wildlife telephoto, portraits with gorgeous defocused backgrounds, or even astrophotography with specialized glass. This variety is the DSLR’s main advantage.

If you need maximum flexibility or want to invest in optics over the long term, Sony’s ecosystem wins hands down. Olympus is a superb all-in-one for traveling ultralight or casual shooting without fussing over optics.

Handling Special Photography Genres: A Discipline-by-Discipline Breakdown

Let’s put these cameras through the paces across common creative fields to see where each shines.

Portrait Photography

The Olympus’s fast f/1.8 lens and subtle sensor-shift stabilization give it an edge for crisp close-ups with creamy bokeh. Coupled with the contrast-detection AF’s face detection, it nails skin tones with minimal fuss. However, depth of field control is limited compared to full-frame DSLRs.

The Sony’s larger sensor and versatile lenses mean better overall image quality, fine detail resolution, and natural rendering. With selective AF points, you can precisely lock onto eyes, producing professional-looking portraits. That said, the kit lens’s variable aperture limits shallow depth of field to some extent.

I’d say if portraiture is your key focus and portability is critical, Olympus XZ-1 is a fine option; for more creative control and quality, the Sony system excels.

Landscape Photography

Dynamic range and resolution are paramount here, and Sony’s larger APS-C sensor shows its strength. The 14 MP files retain detail in shadow-filled woods and bright skies alike. Coupled with the breadth of lens options - ultra-wides, tilt-shifts - you’re set up for true landscape artistry.

Olympus fares adequately, but its smaller sensor limits tonal gradation, and the fixed zoom lens’s widest focal length lacks the expansive reach landscapes often demand.

The Sony’s tilting LCD aids composition on tricky terrain, while the Olympus’s compactness encourages spontaneous shooting. Weather sealing is absent on both, so caution is advised for rugged conditions.

Wildlife Photography

For wildlife, autofocus speed, continuous shooting, and telephoto reach are key.

Again, Sony’s interchangeable system enables pairing with long telephotos, and 3 fps burst mode with phase-detection AF offers better odds of capturing fleeting moments.

Olympus’s slower 2 fps burst and moderate telephoto equivalent limit its wildlife suitability to casual or small subject photography.

Sports Photography

Sports require fast, accurate autofocus and higher shooting speeds. Neither camera is a pro sports tool; however, the Sony’s phase-detection AF and continuous shooting give it a mild edge.

Olympus’s sluggish contrast AF hampers tracking moving athletes, and the limited burst speed won’t catch rapid sequences.

Street Photography

Here, discretion, size, and quick response matter most.

Olympus’s portable size (275 g) and silent electronic shutter mode make it a street photographer’s delight. The bright lens excels in low light, enabling environmental portraiture and candid moments without heavy gear drawing attention.

The Sony’s bulk and noise from mirror slap reduce stealth, but the better ergonomics lend stability for longer shoots.

Macro Photography

The Olympus shines with its 1 cm macro focusing distance and sensor-shift stabilization aiding sharp handheld close-ups.

Sony’s ability to mount dedicated macro lenses offers superior magnification and bokeh control, though you'd need to invest externally.

Night and Astro Photography

Sony’s higher dynamic range and noise performance help capture star fields and nightscapes with cleaner files.

Olympus’s limiting noise at high ISO and lack of manual bulb exposure restrict capability here.

Video Capabilities

Neither camera is a video powerhouse by modern standards.

Olympus XZ-1 records 720p HD video at 30 fps in Motion JPEG format, with image stabilization aiding smooth footage, though no external microphone input limits audio quality.

Sony A390 lacks video capabilities entirely, focusing purely on stills.

For casual video shooters, Olympus holds the advantage.

Travel Photography

The Olympus’s compactness and all-in-one lens grants convenience for lightweight travel kits.

Sony’s larger size and weight make it more burdensome but offer greater creative scope due to lens options.

Battery life slightly favors Olympus at 320 shots per charge vs Sony’s 230, reflecting their design philosophies.

Professional Work

Sony’s RAW support, bigger sensor, and lens ecosystem align better with workflows requiring high-quality files, customizable optics, and future expandability.

Olympus’s compact form and moderate RAW capabilities position it as a quality backup or travel camera, not primary professional gear.

Build Quality and Weather Resistance

Neither camera offers dust, moisture, shock, or freeze-proofing. The sturdier DSLR chassis of Sony feels more durable for daily rough handling, but both require care in adverse environments.

Connectivity, Storage, and Batteries

Both rely on USB 2.0, HDMI output, and single SD card slots (Sony also supports Memory Stick Pro Duo). No wireless features exist on either.

Battery-wise, Olympus’s Li-50B can shoot approximately 320 shots per charge, outperforming Sony’s NP-FH50 rated for about 230 shots. For extended use, you’ll want spare batteries with either.

Practical Value and Pricing Today

Listed prices are roughly $567 for Olympus XZ-1 and $500 for Sony A390 at launch.

Despite the price gap, the Sony’s larger sensor, better autofocus, and lens versatility deliver more professional value per dollar if you’re invested in serious photography.

Olympus offers a premium compact experience for enthusiasts prioritizing size and lens speed over ecosystem breadth.

Summary of Technical Scores and Genre Ratings

This chart summarizes overall performance metrics and genre-specific scores to illustrate strengths clearly:

Sample Images Spotlight

Here’s a gallery showing images from both cameras illustrating their color rendering, detail, and dynamic range capabilities. Take note of noise levels in shadows and highlight roll-off.

Olympus XZ 1 front Olympus XZ 1 screen back Sony A390 screen back

Final Recommendations: Which Should You Choose?

I’ll be candid: if you want the best image quality, creative flexibility, and plan to grow as a photographer investing in lenses, the Sony Alpha A390 makes the better long-term partner. Its larger APS-C sensor and phase-detect autofocus deliver more professional-quality images across genres. It’s also easier to customize shooting experiences and expand via lenses.

That said, if you prize portability, ease of use, and fast optics in a sleek package, and want something that fits and shoots anywhere with minimal gear fuss, the Olympus XZ-1 is hard to beat. It’s superb for travel, street photography, daylight portraits, and casual macro work, with the bonus of HD video recording.

Who should pick Olympus XZ-1?

• Street and travel photographers prioritizing compactness
• Enthusiasts wanting a fast-lens point-and-shoot
• Users needing video capabilities
• Budget-conscious casual shooters who want quality in a small form

Who should pick Sony A390?

• Aspiring DSLR users entering photography seriously
• Photographers needing superior low-light and dynamic range
• Those wanting lens interchangeability and system growth
• Portrait, landscape, and wildlife photographers who demand precision AF

I hope this in-depth comparison - informed by years of shooting and technical testing - helps clarify which camera suits your photographic ambitions best.

Feel free to ask if you want me to cover any aspect in more detail. After all, choosing the right camera is about matching your vision and workflow, not just specs on paper.

Happy shooting!