Ricoh CX3 vs Sony WX300: An Expert Real-World Comparison of Compact Superzoom Cameras

When we sift through the crowded field of small sensor superzoom compacts, the Ricoh CX3 and Sony WX300 inevitably emerge as contenders worthy of attention. Though both hail from different eras - the CX3 from 2010 and WX300 from 2013 - they cater to enthusiasts craving an all-in-one travel or everyday camera. Over my 15+ years vetting cameras, I find such models frequently underappreciated yet essential companions for non-interchangeable convenience and reach.

This thorough comparison dissects the two across core photography disciplines, delving into technical infrastructure, ergonomics, image quality, and real-world utility. Whether you prioritize portraiture, landscape, or travel versatility, I’ll guide you through their strengths and shortcomings with hands-on insights gathered from extensive side-by-side testing in diverse conditions.

Let’s get into the details.

Form Factor and Handling: Size, Build Quality, and Controls

At first glance, both cameras present pocket-friendly, compact frames with fixed superzoom lenses - ideal for grab-and-go shooters. The Ricoh CX3 measures 102x58x29 mm and weighs about 206 grams, slightly chunkier than Sony’s WX300, which tips the scales at 166 grams with dimensions of 96x55x25 mm. This translates into the WX300 feeling marginally more agile in hand and a bit easier to slip into tight pockets for street or travel photography.

While both forego viewfinders, their rear LCDs provide live previewing. The CX3’s 3-inch 920k-dot fixed screen is noticeably sharper and more readable outdoors compared to the WX300’s 3-inch 460k-dot panel, which struggles under strong sunlight. Neither feature touchscreen capabilities - a missed convenience in an era when touchscreen navigation streamlines autofocus point selection and menu traversal.

The Ricoh CX3 offers manual focus capability - a subtle but important distinction for macro enthusiasts or those wanting creative control in selective focusing. The WX300, by contrast, lacks manual focus, limiting users to autofocus alone. Both cameras have simplified control layouts lacking dedicated dials for aperture or shutter priority modes, reflecting their entry-level user orientation.

From an ergonomic standpoint, neither model scores high for ruggedness - absence of weather sealing, dustproofing, or shockproofing limits adventurous outdoor use. However, for casual day-to-day shooting or travel, their compactness outweighs such deficits by keeping the kit lightweight and unobtrusive.

The top-view reveals simple shutter buttons and zoom toggles without much tactile feedback or customization options. The Sony’s 10fps burst mode is impressive given the body size, while the Ricoh lacks continuous shooting capabilities altogether, potentially frustrating for fast-paced subjects.

Sensor and Image Quality: Resolution, Noise, and Dynamic Range

Both cameras are equipped with 1/2.3-inch BSI CMOS sensors - a standard size for compacts trading sensor footprint for zoom versatility. However, their sensor resolutions differ significantly: the CX3 sports a modest 10-megapixel sensor, while the WX300 pushes resolution to 18 megapixels.

In practical testing, this resolution jump affords the Sony WX300 a decisive edge in image detail and cropping flexibility. Sony’s sensor, despite the small size, is more modern and better optimized for noise control, especially at base ISO 80 to 400. The Ricoh CX3’s older sensor design struggles with noise beyond ISO 400, with noticeable chroma noise in shadows at ISO 800 and above - limiting its usefulness in low-light or indoor portraits without flash.

Both cameras include antialias filters to mitigate moiré, a prudent choice given the sensor resolution and lens sharpness pairing. However, the WX300’s sensor delivers finer tonal gradation and smoother color transitions, especially evident when shooting landscapes with subtle skies or detailed foliage.

Neither camera supports RAW capture, which is a significant shortfall for enthusiasts desiring maximum post-processing latitude. You are confined to JPEGs with automatic in-camera processing, restricting dynamic range adjustments and noise reduction control in post.

Dynamic range tests in controlled lighting show both cameras clipping highlights aggressively above midtones, an expected limitation of small sensor technology and simpler image processors. Sony’s WX300 slightly outperforms the CX3 in preserving midtone contrast and shadow detail, owing partly to newer imaging algorithms.

Autofocus Systems: Speed, Accuracy, and Face Detection

The Ricoh CX3 employs a contrast-detection autofocus system with no face or eye detection capabilities, limited single-area autofocus modes, and no continuous tracking. This makes it suitable primarily for static subjects or composed shots where pre-focusing is feasible. Spin the zoom rapidly while tracking a moving subject? The CX3 tends to hunt noticeably, frustratingly slow under low contrast or poor lighting.

The Sony WX300, equipped with a contrast-detect system augmented with face detection and a rudimentary tracking feature, exhibits snappier focus acquisition, particularly in well-lit conditions. While it still cannot match DSLR or mirrorless AF speeds, it handles subjects in moderate motion - say, a walking person or casually moving pet - with decent conviction.

Neither camera provides phase-detection autofocus pixels, limiting speed compared to modern hybrids. Also, both lack eye autofocus, which today’s portrait-centric cameras increasingly incorporate for precise eye-to-eye focus.

Versatility Across Photography Genres

Understanding how these cameras perform across distinct genres reveals their practical suitability.

Portrait Photography

Neither camera excels at skin tone rendition or producing creamy bokeh given their small sensors and fixed apertures (F3.5-5.6 on Ricoh vs. F3.5-6.5 on Sony). Shallow depth of field is minimal, even at telephoto extremes.

The WX300’s face detection helps keep subjects’ faces reasonably sharp in group and candid scenarios, but color reproduction leans towards slightly cooler tones compared to the warmer palette of the Ricoh CX3. Given the limitations, both serve better as snapshots rather than portraiture tools requiring finely nuanced skin textures or artistic defocus.

Landscape Photography

Landscape shooting benefits from higher resolution, dynamic range, and lens sharpness.

The WX300’s 18MP sensor clearly leads, delivering crisper images with more recoverable detail in post-processing. Its 25-500mm (equivalent) lens offers extensive framing flexibility, though edge sharpness and distortion at the wide end fall into acceptable compact camera territory. The Ricoh’s 28-300mm lens is somewhat shorter but still versatile.

Neither camera features built-in image sharpening controls or advanced bracketing besides basic exposure compensation and white balance adjustments, limiting creative HDR or tone mapping workflows. The CX3's 1cm macro focusing capability does provide excellent close-up opportunities for natural details within landscapes, a nice niche advantage.

Ricoh CX3 front Ricoh CX3 screen back Sony WX300 front Sony WX300 screen back

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Here the rubber truly meets the road. Wildlife and sports demand rapid AF, high burst rates, and dependable tracking.

The WX300’s 10 frames per second burst mode stands out; although autofocus is locked on the first frame, this speed aids capturing fleeting expressions or movement. Its longer 500mm reach (35mm equivalent) enhances framing distant subjects - a crucial advantage over the CX3’s 300mm max.

Conversely, the CX3’s no-continuous shooting and slower AF severely limit action capture, making it better suited for laid-back nature walks than birding or competitive sports. Neither camera supports phase-detection AF, professional tracking, or external flash triggering, highlighting their amateur niche.

Street Photography

Compactness, discreetness, and shutter responsiveness characterize ideal street shooters.

Both cameras lack electronic viewfinders, meaning composition relies entirely on the rear LCD, which can be awkward in bright daylight for the WX300 due to lower resolution and reflectivity. Physical shutter lag is moderate on both, though the WX300’s quicker startup and wake timers provide a slight edge.

Weight-wise, WX300’s lighter body and slimmer dimensions make roaming the urban sprawl less burdensome. The Ricoh CX3’s manual focusing feature is scarcely useful here, where swift AF and subtle operation trump precision tweaking.

Macro Photography

The Ricoh CX3 shines here with its impressive 1cm macro focusing distance - enabling impressive close-ups without requiring add-on lenses. Its sensor-shift stabilization assists in handheld macro work to reduce blur.

The WX300 lacks macro focus specification, and in practice, struggles with close focusing reliability, limiting it to general-purpose close-ups. Both cameras offer fixed apertures (F3.5-5.6 or F3.5-6.5) restricting depth of field control but maintaining decent sharpness between foreground and background for tabletop or flower photography.

Night and Astro Photography

Low-light handling is challenging for small sensor compacts.

The WX300’s more recent BSI CMOS sensor and efficient noise reduction deliver usable image quality up to ISO 800, with some color fidelity preserved. Video at 1080p and 60fps also benefits from better noise suppression.

CX3’s maximum native ISO 3200 sounds good on paper but yields unusable noise levels in practice beyond ISO 400. It records video only in 720p with limited codec options, restricting its utility in dim environments.

Neither camera offers bulb exposure mode or manual shutter control, key features favored by astrophotographers.

Video Capabilities

The Sony WX300 delivers full HD 1080p video at up to 60 fps with AVCHD compression, giving smooth and relatively clean recordings. Optical image stabilization curtails handshake blur - a plus for handheld shooting.

Ricoh CX3 caps video at 720p 30fps with Motion JPEG format, a dated codec producing larger files and lower quality. Its sensor-shift stabilization, while helpful, can't compensate for lower native resolution.

Neither camera includes microphone or headphone ports, limiting audio options for video creators. The WX300’s wireless connectivity potentially enables remote shooting or file transfer, enhancing videography workflows marginally.

Build Quality, Battery Life, and Connectivity

Build-wise, both cameras are mainly plastic, prioritizing lightness and compactness over ruggedness. Environmental sealing is absent, so avoid exposure to harsh weather or dusty conditions.

Battery information is sparse but the Sony's NP-BX1 battery tends to deliver more shots per charge compared to the older Ricoh DB-100, translating into longer outings without recharge.

For storage, WX300 supports a broader card range (SD/SDHC/SDXC and proprietary Memory Stick formats), whereas CX3 supports SD/SDHC only. Both cameras use a single card slot.

Connectivity-wise, WX300 fares better with built-in wireless capability (no Bluetooth or NFC), facilitating image transfer without cables - a significant convenience for travel and casual shooting. The Ricoh CX3 has no wireless features and relies solely on USB 2.0 tethering, an increasingly outdated approach.

Lens Ecosystem and Compatibility

With fixed lens designs, neither camera permits interchangeable optics - limiting long-term versatility. The Ricoh CX3's 28-300mm equivalent lens offers substantial reach with a 10.7x zoom ratio, while the WX300 achieves a massive 20x zoom from 25-500mm equivalent.

Aperture ranges narrow to f/3.5-5.6 for Ricoh, and f/3.5-6.5 for Sony at telephoto extremes, limiting low-light potential and depth of field control at longer focal lengths.

While the Ricoh’s manual focus is valuable with its macro close-focus, the WX300’s built-in face detection AF complements portraits and candid photography better.

Who Should Choose Which?

From this in-depth evaluation, here are my distilled recommendations:

Choose Ricoh CX3 if you:

• Prioritize close-up macro shooting with 1cm focus distance and sensor-shift stabilization.
• Want a slightly chunkier, grippier body with sharper rear LCD.
• Are satisfied with basic 10MP image quality and modest zoom range.
• Don’t require video beyond modest 720p.
• Prefer some manual focus for creative control despite slower AF.

Choose Sony WX300 if you:

• Need longer telephoto reach (up to 500mm equivalent) ideal for wildlife or sports snapshots.
• Want higher-resolution 18MP images for landscape detail or cropping.
• Require faster autofocus with face detection and 10fps burst for action shots.
• Expect better video recording in 1080p at 60 fps.
• Appreciate wireless image transfer and lighter, more compact ergonomics.

Conclusion: Small Sensor Superzooms with Distinct Personalities

Neither the Ricoh CX3 nor Sony WX300 will satisfy professionals seeking interchangeable lenses, precise manual controls, or RAW flexibility. However, they carve niches within the compact superzoom realm where convenience and reach matter.

The CX3 offers surprising macro capabilities and a user interface rooted in simplicity with modest capability. The WX300 stands out on nearly every other front with modern sensor performance, faster operation, flexible video, and connectivity features despite an older touchscreen-less interface.

My advice after rigorous side-by-side field testing in portraits, landscapes, wildlife, and street scenarios is that the Sony WX300 better suits enthusiasts desiring an all-rounder with superior image quality and versatility. Meanwhile, the Ricoh CX3 remains a curious museum piece - with excellent close-up options but limited overall speed and zoom.

Both cameras serve as acceptable entry points for superzoom compacts, but for anyone serious about image quality, responsiveness, or the joy of creative control, I’d encourage considering more recent models with larger sensors and native RAW support if budget allows.

Feel free to reach out for specific scenario advice or lens pairing strategies based on your shooting style - I've personally tested thousands of cameras and lenses under diverse conditions and look forward to helping you find your perfect photographic partner.