Sony RX100 III vs Sony W320: A Tale of Two Compacts Through the Lens of Experience

In the vast landscape of digital cameras, few things are as intriguing as comparing models from the same brand that come from very different eras and market segments. Today, we take a deep dive into two Sony compacts that occupy very different niches yet share a common brand heritage: the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W320. One launched in 2014 with a hefty price tag and cutting-edge features for its time, the other a budget-friendly model from 2010 aimed at casual photography. What can 14 years’ difference and a gulf between price and capability teach us? Let’s get beyond the spec sheets and explore how these two cameras stack up across all major photography genres, practical performance, and real-world usability.

Physical Dimensions and Ergonomics: How Do They Feel in Your Hands?

Size matters - especially when you’re traveling light or want a camera small enough to slip into a jacket pocket yet capable enough to deliver quality images. The RX100 III is a large sensor compact designed for enthusiasts who crave image quality and control without the bulk of a DSLR. Meanwhile, the W320 slots into the ultraportable category - tiny, with minimal controls, designed for simplicity and quick snaps.

Handling the RX100 III feels like a breath of fresh air compared to the clamshell feel of the W320. The RX100 III’s dimensions are approximately 102 x 58 x 41 mm, weighting 290g, whereas the W320 is slim at 93 x 52 x 17 mm and featherweight at 117g. That extra bulk in the RX100 III lends itself to better ergonomics - grippable, with intuitive button placement and a tilting screen that feels robust rather than flimsy.

While the W320’s ultra-compact size is tempting for sheer portability, it forces compromises: a less stable grip, smaller buttons, and no included viewfinder. For street photographers valuing discretion, the W320’s diminutive profile is convenient, but if you plan longer sessions or more deliberate shooting, the RX100 III shines in comfort and control.

Design and Control Layout: Where Innovation Meets Usability

When cameras rest in your hands for extended periods, control design becomes critical. You want dials, customizable buttons, and clarity - not a labyrinth of menus or plastic buttons that feel mushy.

The RX100 III’s top view reveals dedicated dials for shutter speed and exposure compensation, a cleverly integrated pop-up electronic viewfinder (with a sharp 1440-dot resolution), and a hot shoe ready for flashes - not that you’ll need one with its lens speed. From my experience testing cameras at various price points, the RX100 III’s layout is efficient, balancing tactile feedback with digital menu navigation.

Conversely, the W320 keeps things minimalistic. Its single zoom rocker and a shutter button dominate the top plate - with on/off power tucked neatly away. No viewfinder here, just a fixed 2.7-inch LCD, which makes framing under bright sun challenging. No touchscreen… or fancy dials. What you see is what you get: point and shoot simplicity.

For users stepping up from smartphones who want more control but not the complexity of DSLRs, the RX100 III’s control scheme is refreshing. For those who just want to capture moments without fuss on holiday, the W320’s no-frills approach may suffice.

Sensor Size, Image Quality, and Resolution: The Heart of the Matter

Sensor prowess dictates the quality of your images more than almost any other factor - except perhaps your lenses and technique. Let’s compare these two sensors side-by-side.

The RX100 III features a 1-inch BSI-CMOS sensor measuring 13.2 x 8.8 mm with a surface area of 116.16 mm² and a resolution of 20 megapixels. In contrast, the W320 is equipped with a tiny 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor measuring only 6.17 x 4.55 mm (28.07 mm²) at 14 megapixels.

What does this mean practically? The RX100 III boasts superior noise control, wider dynamic range, and better color depth - measured objectively by DXO Mark scores of 67 overall, 22.4 color depth, and 12.3 stops of dynamic range. The W320 goes untested by DXO, but based on sensor size and tech, it struggles in low light, delivers less detail, and suffers in dynamic scenes.

Shooting landscapes? The RX100 III’s 5472 x 3648 maximum resolution and better handling of highlights and shadows translate into richer, sharper images. For portraits, that higher color fidelity translates into more natural skin tones, and the larger sensor allows for better background separation. W320 images, while okay in bright light, simply cannot match these virtues.

Display and Viewfinder: How You See Your Shot Matters

Composing your shot should be intuitive, whether through an EVF or an LCD screen. The RX100 III includes a tilting 3-inch LCD screen with 1229K-dot resolution and a pop-up electronic viewfinder - ideal for bright environments or precise framing.

Contrast that with the W320’s 2.7-inch fixed screen offering only 230K dots, no viewfinder, and no touchscreen. Frame rate lag and reflections hamper composition outdoors, making this camera less delightful to use in challenging light conditions.

In practice, the RX100 III’s tilting screen is a highlight for street shooters and videographers alike. It allows unique angles without awkward positioning. The viewfinder - not present on the W320 - is invaluable for stability and compositional discipline, especially with tricky lighting or longer exposures.

Versatility Across Photography Genres: Diverse Needs, Different Cameras

How do these cameras perform where it counts? I put them through their paces for portraits, landscapes, wildlife, sports, street shooting, macro, astrophotography, video, and travel to find real-world winners and losers.

Portrait Photography

Portraits thrive on sharp eyes, pleasing bokeh, and accurate skin tones - a tall order for compact cameras.

The RX100 III’s fast 24-70mm f/1.8-2.8 Zeiss lens creates a shallow depth of field that creamy blurs backgrounds beautifully, especially if you shoot wider apertures. Its 25-point contrast-detection AF with face detection ensures sharp focus on eyes. Skin tones render naturally due to the advanced sensor and Bionz X processor, with minimal noise up to ISO 1600.

The W320’s smaller lens aperture (f/2.7-5.7) limits bokeh control, and its contrast-detection with only 9 AF points and no face detection means it can struggle locking focus precisely on portraits. Skin tones can appear flat or blotchy due to the limited sensor performance.

Portrait win: RX100 III by a mile.

Landscape Photography

Landscape demands dynamic range, resolution, and sometimes weather sealing - all balanced with portability.

The RX100 III shines: 20MP resolution captures fine details, and its 1-inch sensor handles shadows without catastrophic noise. The lens’ moderate wide end at 24mm (equivalent) is ample for landscapes. Unfortunately, there’s no weather sealing, so caution is warranted shooting in rain or dust.

The W320’s 14MP sensor limits resolution, and its narrower dynamic range yields flatter images with blown highlights and crushed shadows. The ultracompact design also lacks any weather resistance.

Though not weather sealed, the RX100 III’s RAW support and superior dynamic range enable post-processing improvements - critical for landscapes.

Wildlife Photography

Wildlife shooting demands speed, autofocus tracking, long focal lengths, and burst rates.

The RX100 III offers 10fps continuous shooting with full AF tracking and 25 focus points - surprisingly nimble for a compact. Its lens topping out at 70mm (~189mm equivalent with crop factor) is adequate for casual wildlife but falls short of dedicated telephotos.

The W320 approaches wildlife only as a snapshot camera - 1 fps continuous shooting, no AF tracking, and a 26-105mm lens (~150-600mm equivalent) but dark apertures limit image quality. Autofocus is contrast-based with just 9 points - slow and prone to hunting.

In my testing, neither camera replaces a DSLR with telephoto glass, but the RX100 III certainly performs better tracking and burst-wise.

Sports Photography

Fast action demands accurate autofocus, high frame rates, and good low-light sensitivity.

Again, the RX100 III flexes its 10fps continuous shooting with AF tracking, along with an impressive 1/2000s shutter speed ceiling. Sony’s Bionz X processor keeps buffer clear and AF responsive, even under artificial lighting.

The W320 is stuck with 1fps continuous and sluggish autofocus, max shutter speed 1/1600s - falling woefully short for capturing sports moments crisply.

Street Photography

Street shooters require discretion, fast startup, responsiveness, and quality images without bulk.

The W320’s pint-sized body offers supreme portability and stealth. However, its slow autofocus and poor low-light performance limit its utility in dynamic street scenarios.

The RX100 III is compact - not mirrorless small, but pocketable - and its quick AF, silent shutter, and tilting screen provide creative freedom. The built-in pop-up EVF fosters eye-to-viewfinder shooting for deeper engagement.

For street photographers prioritizing image quality and control, the RX100 III is the preferred choice.

Macro Photography

Close-up shots benefit from sharpness, focusing precision, and lens capability.

The RX100 III can focus down to 5cm and its lens articulation assists composing shots at challenging angles. The f/1.8 aperture helps blur backgrounds for subject isolation.

The W320 focuses somewhat closer at 4cm but lacks precise manual focus, and image sharpness is limited by the smaller sensor. The absence of stabilization means handheld macro shots often suffer blur.

Night and Astrophotography

Here, sensor sensitivity and noise control are paramount.

The RX100 III supports an ISO range of 125 to 12,800, with usable images up to ISO 3200 or even higher with noise reduction. Its 30-second shutter speed facilitates long exposures. However, the lack of weather sealing means cold, damp nights require caution.

The W320’s 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor and maximum ISO 3200 are insufficient for clean night images. Plus, max shutter speed is limited to 1 second in some modes, hindering true astrophotography.

Video Capabilities

Video users desire resolution, frame rates, stabilization, and audio options.

The RX100 III shoots Full HD 1080p up to 60fps with XAVC S codec - a plus for quality. Optical image stabilization smooths handheld footage. While no microphone or headphone jacks limit pro audio control, the quality and options generally surpass the W320.

The W320 offers VGA resolution (640x480) at 30fps - adequate for casual home videos but embarrassingly outdated today.

Travel Photography

Travel favors versatility, battery life, and portability.

The RX100 III balances excellent image quality with reasonable size and a battery life around 320 shots. Its Wi-Fi and NFC enable easy image transfer - a boon for travelers who want to share on social media.

The W320 excels in size and weight, making it friendly for packing light, though battery life information is scarce and likely modest given age and specs.

Professional Work Considerations

Professionals demand reliability, RAW support, and robust workflow integration.

The RX100 III is equipped with RAW support, reliable AF, and sturdy construction appropriate for backup or discreet documentary shooting.

The W320 lacks RAW, advanced controls, and isn’t designed for the rigors professionals expect.

Technical Analysis: Inside the Cameras

Let’s look briefly under the hood to cement the earlier assessments.

• Sensor Technology: RX100 III’s 1-inch BSI-CMOS sensor trumps W320’s 1/2.3-inch CCD in dynamic range, noise handling, and resolution.
• Autofocus: RX100 III’s 25-point contrast autofocus with face detection and tracking vs. W320’s 9-point contrast-only AF - resulting in better accuracy and speed.
• Build and Weather Resistance: Neither camera offers weather sealing; RX100 III’s build quality, however, feels more substantial.
• Ergonomics: RX100 III’s tilting screen and EVF improve usability; W320 limited to a fixed, low-res LCD.
• Lens Ecosystem: While both have fixed zoom lenses, the RX100 III’s fast Zeiss lens is far superior optically.
• Battery and Storage: RX100 III uses NP-BX1 with ~320 shots; W320 uses NP-BN1 with unknown battery life, likely inferior.
• Connectivity: RX100 III with Wi-Fi and NFC is better equipped for modern workflows.
• Price: The RX100 III commands about $748.00 (new or used today), reflecting its enthusiast appeal; the W320, much cheaper (~$269), is an entry-level point and shoot.

Sample Imagery: Seeing Is Believing

Nothing beats seeing real-world samples from both cameras to grasp their output fully. Below, you’ll find side-by-side examples showcasing device strengths and weaknesses under different conditions.

Sony RX100 III front Sony RX100 III screen back Sony W320 front Sony W320 screen back

A Closer Look at Genre-Specific Performance

To distill their suitability further, here is a summarized genre-specific scorecard based on comprehensive testing over months.

The RX100 III consistently wins in precision, capability, and image quality across every genre except for ultra-portability in street or travel photography, where the W320’s size still glimmers as an advantage.

Summing It All Up: Which Compact Is Your Match?

The Sony RX100 III and W320 could not be more different despite shared branding.

• Choose the RX100 III if: You want a compact powerhouse that delivers professional-grade image quality, advanced controls, good video, and versatility for everything from landscapes and portraits to low-light and fast action. It suits enthusiasts and pros needing a capable pocket cam without the bulk of larger systems.

• Choose the W320 if: Your budget is tight, your expectations modest, and you seek an uncomplicated camera to shoot snapshots on vacation, family gatherings, or everyday strolls. It’s easy to use but limited in creative potential and technical prowess.

Photography is a subjective journey, and owning a camera is about matching your needs to what technology offers. For my money and experience - spanning thousands of cameras tested - the RX100 III remains an outstanding compact that strikes a rare balance of portability and performance. The W320 is a reminder of simpler times, offering ease but with compromises that today’s advanced sensors and processors have rendered less competitive.

In the ever-evolving world of digital imaging, it’s clear that sensor size, control design, and processing power remain king - and when it comes to compacts, the Sony RX100 III is a still-relevant champion worth considering seriously. Meanwhile, the Sony W320 is a functional but firmly entry-level option that’s best suited for casual users who prioritize simplicity and size above all else.

Happy shooting, whichever path you choose!