Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH22 vs. Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W320: A Hands-On Compact Camera Showdown

In the ever-evolving landscape of compact digital cameras, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH22 and Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W320 emerged in early 2010 as affordable options aimed at casual shooters seeking simplicity and reliable performance. Now, with over a decade of hindsight and countless cameras tested since, I find it particularly illuminating to revisit these two "small sensor" compacts to extract enduring lessons about design priorities, sensor tech, and usability. In this article, I will dissect each model’s strengths and compromises with an eye toward real-world photography scenarios, usability factors, and the subtleties that often make or break a camera in daily use.

My aim is to provide photographers - whether hobbyists or professionals - clear, practical guidance on how these models hold up still and video-wise, across varied genres, and how choices in sensor, lens, and ergonomics translate to image quality and handling. So, let’s jump in and compare these two contemporaries from Panasonic and Sony with exactly the scrutiny and contextual nuance you’d expect from 15+ years of hands-on camera testing.

First Impressions and Ergonomics: Size Matters

Before pressing the shutter, how a camera feels in the hand often shapes the entire shooting experience. The Panasonic FH22 and Sony W320 both qualify as small sensor compacts, but their physical dimensions and ergonomics subtly sway their usability in different directions.

The Panasonic FH22 measures a modest 100 x 57 x 27 mm and tips the scales at 170g, while Sony’s W320 comes in distinctly smaller and lighter at 93 x 52 x 17 mm and 117g. This difference isn’t just a number on a spec sheet - it affects grip confidence, handling stability, and even pocketability.

In the field, the FH22’s chunkier profile provides a reassuring grip for those with larger hands or when you’re shooting with enthusiasm over extended sessions - landscape hikes, casual portraits, or travel photography. Its slightly beefier frame allows for easier manual operation of buttons - even without manual focus or exposure control, you appreciate well-spaced keys and predictable tactile response.

Conversely, the Sony W320 excels in discretion and pocket-friendliness. Its ultracompact design makes it the go-to choice for street photographers or travel shooters who prioritize convenience and minimal intrusion. The tradeoff is a tighter grip and buttons that can feel cramped, especially for users accustomed to larger bodies.

The Panasonic’s fixed 3” touchscreen, while not fully capacitive by modern standards, offers an intuitive method to focus and review shots, enhancing creative agility, whereas the Sony foregoes touchscreen functionality, relying instead on a more traditional button-based interface. That approach’s adequacy depends largely on personal preference and dexterity under real-world constraints.

Overall, while both cameras lack advanced ergonomics found in contemporary mirrorless or DSLR bodies, the FH22 leans toward solid handling comfort. The W320’s smaller footprint positions it as the discreet everyday companion.

Control Layout and Usability: Intuitive or Clunky?

The control design is where Panasonic and Sony’s philosophies start to diverge noticeably. The FH22 incorporates a straightforward set of controls including a mode dial and a dedicated shutter release ring, lending itself to rapid adjustments even when on the move.

The Sony relies heavily on a fewer number of buttons integrated into a compact top panel, trading some operability for size and simplicity.

From my hands-on testing, I found the FH22’s control layout better facilitates spontaneous creativity. The physical zoom lever and dedicated mode dial allow quick switching between scene modes or settings. Though the camera lacks aperture or shutter priority modes, the inclusion of exposure compensation, manual white balance, and autofocus options grant more direct creative influence.

Sony’s W320 remains true to its ultracompact stature with minimalistic controls. The lack of a touchscreen further means button presses often require multiple clicks through menus to access desired functions. The absence of image stabilization (more on that later) makes the zoom lever's smoothness and control less meaningful in some scenarios since sharpness may depend heavily on steady hands.

For users who prize swift access to critical settings without diving into menus, Panasonic’s FH22 holds a clear advantage. However, those seeking absolute simplicity may find the Sony’s pared-back approach refreshingly straightforward.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Both cameras use a 14MP 1/2.3" CCD sensor - a common size for compact cameras of the era. The Panasonic’s sensor measures 6.08 x 4.56 mm (27.72 mm²), while Sony’s is marginally larger at 6.17 x 4.55 mm (28.07 mm²). While such minutiae can seem trivial, sensor dimensions impact light-gathering ability and ultimately image quality, especially in low light or high dynamic contrast scenes.

Despite the similarity, the Panasonic FH22 offers a higher maximum ISO setting (up to 6400) compared to Sony’s top of 3200. Subjective real-world testing reveals the FH22 produces cleaner images at higher ISO - its optical image stabilization weaves into better handheld low-light performance, reducing blur and noise. The Sony W320’s lack of stabilization combined with a narrower ISO range makes it more of a daylight or well-lit environment performer.

Dynamic range - which determines how well highlights and shadows retain detail - was modest on both but slightly better on the FH22, thanks in part to its image processing pipeline. Neither respects professional dynamic range standards but can manage everyday landscapes with reasonable exposure latitude.

Color reproduction on both cameras favored punchy hues, typical of CCD sensors of the time. The Panasonic generally produced more natural skin tones for portrait work; Sony occasionally pushed warmer saturation, lending a bit of 'pop' but less subtlety.

Regarding resolution, both max out at 14MP (4320 x 3240 pixels), which is plenty for prints up to 8x10 inches without excessive quality loss. But the effective sharpness varies more with lens quality and stabilization than sensor resolution alone.

Optics and Zoom: Versatility vs. Fuoco Approfondito

Optically, these cameras take markedly different approaches. Panasonic equips the FH22 with a 28-224 mm equivalent (8x zoom) f/3.3–5.9 lens, while Sony fits a shorter 26-105 mm equivalent (4x zoom) f/2.7–5.7 lens.

The Panasonic’s longer reach is appealing for wildlife or sports casual photography - nothing professional-grade, but beneficial to shoot from a distance when subjects are small or skittish. I’ve tried capturing small birds in parks with the FH22, and the telephoto extension allowed a decent crop without aggressive digital zooming that plagues many ultracompacts.

Sony’s wider aperture of f/2.7 at the wide end facilitates better low-light shots and a shallower depth of field, albeit marginally. Its maximum telephoto of 105 mm is limiting, but adequate for everyday snapshots, street scenes, and group photos.

Macro performance favors Sony slightly, with a minimum focusing distance of 4cm compared to Panasonic’s 5cm. This means the W320 can get closer to subjects like flowers or objects for more detailed close-ups. However, neither camera excels at macro compared to dedicated macro lenses or advanced compacts.

Taken as a combo, Panasonic’s zoom versatility wins for reach, while Sony’s lens provides a good balance between wide-angle capability and brightness.

Autofocus and Handling Speed: Quick on the Draw?

Autofocus technology is pivotal in any camera but particularly so in compact cameras tasked with fast moving and unpredictable subjects - think street scenes, kids, or pets.

Both cameras employ contrast-detection autofocus systems with 9 points. Panasonic’s FH22 supports touch focus on its screen, enabling quicker focusing by tapping on a subject, a feature absent on Sony’s W320.

Unfortunately, neither camera boasts face or eye detection autofocus, limitations obvious given their 2010 release dates. Panasonic does offer autofocus tracking but only in a minimal capacity.

Continuous autofocus modes and burst shooting rates diverge. The FH22 offers 5 FPS (frames per second), respectable for a compact, making it better suited for casual sports or family events. Sony’s W320 limits continuous shooting to a sluggish 1 FPS, less practical for action shots.

In testing, Panasonic’s autofocus was slightly quicker and more accurate in average lighting, aided by its image stabilization helping reduce the need for refocusing due to shake. Sony sometimes showed hunting delays in low light, heightening missed shots.

Display and Interface: Seeing is Believing

Display quality and user interface contribute significantly to composing and reviewing shots. The Panasonic FH22 sports a 3-inch fixed touchscreen with 230k dots, while the Sony W320 opts for a smaller 2.7-inch, 230k dot non-touch screen.

Though neither screen dazzles by modern standards, the Panasonic’s touchscreen adds a layer of interactivity that enriches the shooting experience, especially for novices or casual shooters. In bright sunlight, both struggled with reflections and glare, common for non-anti-reflective LCDs in compacts of this vintage.

Menus on both are basic but Panasonic’s screen and layout prioritizes clarity and fewer submenus. Sony’s interface can feel somewhat cramped and less intuitive, a byproduct of the smaller screen and limited controls.

Video Capabilities: HD or VGA?

Video recording options highlight the era’s compromises and strengths.

The Panasonic FH22 offers HD video capture at 1280 x 720 pixels at 30 FPS in Motion JPEG format, a decent quality for casual clips, albeit with larger file sizes compared to modern codecs. It also supports lower resolutions down to 320 x 240. No microphone or headphone ports limit audio experience, and digital zoom during video can degrade quality.

Sony’s W320 is limited to VGA resolution (640 x 480 at 30 FPS), reflecting a more budget-centric video use case. The lack of image stabilization and slower lens means video handheld shots appear less sharp and steadier.

Neither camera supports 4K video or offers professional codecs, so videographers needing higher resolution or slower-motion options will look elsewhere. However, for casual home videos or travel diaries, Panasonic’s FH22 offers clearly better quality and flexibility.

Battery Life and Storage: Ready or Not?

Detailed battery life figures are not officially provided for either model, but practical testing suggests the FH22, with its larger form factor, is slightly more endurance-oriented. The smaller size and lighter body of the Sony W320 come at a cost of shorter shooting spans before recharge or swap.

Battery model differences matter too: the Sony uses NP-BN1 batteries, easier to replace and find third-party options for, compared to Panasonic’s unspecified but proprietary battery.

Both accept SD/SDHC cards, but Sony adds compatibility with Memory Stick formats, giving collectors of Sony gear flexibility. Single slot designs on both mean managing memory carefully is essential, especially if shooting video or burst sequences.

Connectivity and Extras: What Are We Missing?

Neither camera includes wireless features such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC, unsurprising for 2010-era entry-level compacts. USB 2.0 for data transfer is standard.

Panasonic lacks an HDMI port, while Sony includes a micro HDMI output - useful for immediate playback on HDTVs - a small but meaningful difference for video enthusiasts.

Neither camera supports RAW image capture, limiting post-processing flexibility and making them less appealing for serious photographers who prefer full control over image development.

Performance Summary: Numbers Don’t Lie

Now, distilling our technical and tactile observations into a clear performance overview provides context for decision-making.

Panasonic’s Lumix FH22 scores consistently higher in low-light sensitivity, video capture quality, zoom range, and continuous shooting speed. Sony’s W320 shines in compactness, ease of use for basic photography, and macro focusing.

The differences indicate that FH22 leans more toward enthusiasts craving a bit more creative control and versatility, whereas the W320 trades skilled operation for simplicity and portability.

Genre-Specific Insights: What Suits Your Style?

Photography disciplines demand varying camera attributes; let’s see how each performs across common genres.

• Portraits: Panasonic produces better skin tones and smoother bokeh due to longer zoom and stabilization. Lack of face detection in both hurts candid shots, but FH22’s touch focus helps.

• Landscapes: Higher dynamic range and longer zoom favor the FH22. However, Sony’s wider aperture at wide-end adds some advantage for landscapes under dimmer light.

• Wildlife: Extendable zoom on FH22 wins for distant subjects; Sony may struggle.

• Sports: Faster continuous shooting on FH22 makes it the better pick; Sony’s sluggish 1 FPS can’t keep up.

• Street: Sony’s smaller size and lighter weight mean less interaction with your subjects. But poorer AF speed reduces snapping speed.

• Macro: Sony’s closer minimum focus distance has an edge, but neither excels.

• Night/Astro: High ISO performance and stabilization on FH22 clearly outperform Sony’s limited capabilities.

• Video: Panasonic’s 720p recording is miles ahead of Sony’s VGA.

• Travel: Sony’s compactness is convenient, while Panasonic’s better battery life favors longer shooting.

• Professional: Neither fulfills professional requirements; no RAW, no manual exposure modes, limited build quality.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations: Picking Your Champion

To close, both cameras reflect 2010-era compromises common in budget compacts but tilt toward different user profiles.

If you prioritize image quality, zoom range, video capability, and a bit of creative control, Panasonic Lumix FH22 is the recommended choice. It’s a capable everyday camera that rides the line between casual and mildly serious photography.

Alternatively, if sheer pocketability, ease of use, and straightforward operation champion your workflow, Sony Cyber-shot W320 offers a reliable, tiny travel companion best for snapshots in well-lit conditions without fuss.

Neither is suitable for professional work or advanced enthusiasts seeking manual control or RAW files. Still, for beginners and casual shooters yearning for dependable point-and-shoot functionality, these cameras serve well within their practical niches.

Sample Image Gallery: A Visual Comparison

Let’s wrap with a few sample images showcasing typical outputs from both cameras under diverse shooting conditions.

Panasonic FH22 front Panasonic FH22 screen back Sony W320 front Sony W320 screen back

In essence, these two compact cameras are educational case studies - reminders of how sensor, lens choices, and interface impact photographic results and experience. Back then, decisions revolved around ergonomics, zoom versatility, and video prowess more than megabytes or FPS. A decade later, many of those considerations remain surprisingly relevant.

Thank you for joining me on this exploration. May your camera choices always be informed and your photos forever compelling.