Sony W320 vs Sony W690: A Thorough Look at Two Small-Sensor Compacts

When stepping into the realm of ultracompact and small sensor compacts, Sony has long offered intriguing choices. The Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W320 and DSC-W690 represent two generations of Sony’s entry-level cameras, aiming to provide convenience and decent image quality to casual photographers or those wishing for a straightforward second camera.

Having put both through extensive hands-on testing - field shooting in the city, landscape vistas, quick action scenarios, and even some macro attempts - I want to unpack how these two cameras compare in practical terms. My goal here is to help enthusiasts, hobbyists, and even some professionals understand which of these dated but still relevant models deserves their attention or might still fit a particular niche.

Sitting Them Side by Side: Physical Attributes and Handling

The first impression for any camera comes from how it feels in hand and how intuitively its controls work. Let's start by examining their physical footprint and control layouts.

The Sony W320 is utterly compact, truly a pocketable ultracompact at 93x52x17mm and weighing just 117 grams with its battery and card. Its design emphasizes grab-and-go simplicity, with minimal bulk. In contrast, the W690 expands its girth a bit to 94x56x22mm and weighs 142 grams. That extra heft and size give a more pronounced grip, which helps especially if you hold your camera for extended periods.

While neither model features a dedicated viewfinder or robust manual controls, the W690's larger body allows for a slightly more ergonomic grip and better button placement. The W320’s small size constrains button real estate, making it somewhat fiddly if you have larger fingers, especially when trying to quickly change settings or navigate menus.

From the top, both maintain minimalism. No dials for shutter or aperture priority modes, which is to be expected given their target demographic. The W690's power button is more tactile, and it offers a uniquely dedicated portrait mode (accessible via a self-timer sub-menu) that we found handy for casual snapshots. The W320’s controls feel a bit tinier but still logical, with well-located zoom toggles and shutter buttons.

If you're someone who prioritizes ultra-portability above all, the W320 wins. But for usability during extended street walks or travel, the W690 offers a more forgiving grip and layout.

Sensor and Imaging: Same Sensor Size But Different Generations

Both cameras sport a 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor - Sony’s longstanding small-sensor standard for these compacts - but with subtle differences in resolution and processing.

The W320's sensor captures 14 megapixels, whereas the W690 bumps that slightly to 16 megapixels. Pure pixel count isn’t everything, but paired with the W690’s newer BIONZ image processor, it promises marginally improved noise control and sharper details. However, do not expect DSLR-level quality here - these are entry compacts designed around convenience, not cutting-edge optics or raw image finesse.

Testing in moderate lighting showed both produced similar results: acceptable daylight shots with decent color fidelity but noticeable softening in shadows and blowout risks on highlights, especially with the W320, which lacks advanced dynamic range optimization. The W690’s processor seems to do a bit better narrowing highlight clipping and deepening shadows without introducing muddiness.

Both cameras use an anti-aliasing filter, which softens high-frequency patterns to prevent moiré but limits the absolute resolution and micro-contrast achievable.

Critically, neither supports RAW capture, locking you into JPEGs, which limits professional post-processing options.

LCD Screens and User Interface: A Peek Behind the Glass

Viewing and framing photos can make or break an experience, and here too, differences emerge.

The W320 features a 2.7-inch fixed LCD with 230K dots resolution, which was standard for its 2010 release. The screen is bright enough for casual outdoor use but struggles under harsh light; glare can make composing tricky.

The W690 improves slightly on this with a larger 3-inch ClearPhoto TFT LCD screen maintaining the 230K dots resolution. The screen exhibits better color reproduction, and the slight size boost enhances framing and menu navigation. The ClearPhoto designation references Sony’s color rendering technology that produces richer hues.

Neither model offers touchscreen functionality or an electronic viewfinder, so framing relies on the rear LCD alone, which is a limitation for more rigorous photography but understandable given the compact class.

Menus on both cameras are simple, prioritizing automatic modes and scene selections with little room for manual tweaks. White balance custom presets on the W690 is a plus, a small but essential feature missing on the W320.

Autofocus and Performance: How Quickly and Accurately Can They Nail Focus?

Autofocus systems in entry-level compacts often vary widely in performance, and given CCD sensors lack phase-detection pixels, contrast-detection AF is the method here.

The W320 offers a nine-point contrast-detect AF array, with center-weighted focus by default but supplemented by a multizone option. The W690’s exact number of AF points is unclear but includes improvements like face detection AF and AF tracking enabled.

Neither camera supports manual focus or continuous AF tracking for moving subjects, limiting their usefulness for fast action or wildlife. The W690’s AF tracking shows some promise during testing, holding focus on a pedestrian slightly better than the W320’s fixed AF.

Continuous shooting rates are modest - around 1 frame per second for both - too slow for capturing sports or wildlife in dynamic bursts, relegating both primarily to still target subjects.

Notably, neither camera includes image stabilization on the W320, while the W690 incorporates optical steady shot, which noticeably helps handheld shots, especially at longer focal lengths on the W690’s 10x zoom lens compared to the W320’s 4x.

Zoom Lenses and Macro Capabilities: Versatility in Framing

Zoom versatility and close-up capabilities often define compact cameras’ creative potential.

The W320 sports a 26-105mm equivalent lens with a bright-ish aperture range of f/2.7 to f/5.7. Its maximum aperture at the wide end allows better performance in dimmer lighting and slightly looser depth of field. Macro focus range is 4cm - the ability to get reasonably close when shooting small subjects.

The W690 ups the zoom range considerably, with a 25-250mm equivalent 10x optical zoom (a feature appealing to those who want telephoto reach without bulk). Aperture here ranges from f/3.3 to f/5.9, so a bit slower at the wide end than the W320. Macro focusing kicks in at 5cm, just a hair less intimate than the W320’s capability.

Real-world testing showed the W690’s 10x zoom to hold decent sharpness up to 150mm but progressively softens towards the full tele end. The W320’s 4x zoom maintains somewhat better edge-to-edge sharpness but lacks telephoto versatility.

For macro enthusiasts, both cameras deliver respectable close focusing, but neither offers specialized macro modes or focus stacking. The W690’s optical image stabilization gives it the edge in handheld macro shooting, minimizing blur - a subtle but valuable gain.

Photography Genres: Where Each Camera Finds Its Strength

How do these cameras perform across traditional photography disciplines? I assessed both through direct controlled testing and real-world shoots.

Portrait Photography

Portraits demand accurate skin tones, good bokeh (background blur), and reliable eye/face detection.

The W690, with its face detection AF, yields more consistent focus lock on subjects and slightly better exposure via multisegment metering. The W320’s focusing on portraits is less reliable and can occasionally hunt or mislock, an issue exacerbated in low light.

Bokeh on both cameras is limited by their small sensor size and smaller lens apertures. Background blur is present but subtle, requiring closer distances and focal length to accentuate. For snapshot portraits, either works, but the W690’s autofocus and exposure handling are noticeably superior.

Landscape Photography

Key considerations here: resolution, dynamic range, and handling wide scenes.

Here, the small sensors of both cameras limit dynamic range significantly, leading to highlight clipping in bright skies and shadow noise in shaded areas.

W690’s slight resolution advantage and newer processing give it a modest edge in retaining detail when cropping or printing large. Neither offers weather sealing or robust build quality necessary for rugged outdoor shoots. Both can serve as casual travel or vacation cameras for landscapes, especially when you shoot in good light.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Neither camera is targeted at these fast-action scenarios.

Autofocus speeds and tracking on the W690 marginally improve over the W320, but continuous shooting remains slow, and telephoto reach is limited to the W690’s 250mm equivalent.

Low-light sports shooting is not in their wheelhouse; noise and slow shutter speeds preclude sharp, crisp fast-moving subject capturing.

Street Photography

Compact size and discrete operation matter most here.

While the W320’s smaller form factor aids stealth, the W690’s better ergonomics and faster autofocus make it more capable of capturing spontaneous moments, despite being slightly bigger and louder.

Macro and Close-up

As discussed, both cameras provide reasonable capabilities but are hindered by lack of advanced macro modes or stabilization on the W320.

Optical stabilization on the W690 is a boon here, reducing blur at tight focus distances.

Night and Astrophotography

High ISO performance is crucial here; both cameras’ CCD sensors struggle with noise beyond ISO 400. Maximum ISO 3200 is more of a marketing figure than practical setting.

Neither offers bulb modes or advanced exposure options. Long exposures for astro use are impractical on these cameras.

Video Performance

Video specs highlight clear generational improvements.

• W320 max video resolution is limited to 640x480 at 30fps in Motion JPEG format. This results in grainy, blocky video with limited usability beyond casual playback.

• W690 boosts to 1280x720 HD 30fps recording in MPEG-4 format, which is far more watchable and crisp for everyday video needs.

Neither camera offers microphone or headphone jacks, manual exposure in video, or stabilization for video beyond the W690’s optical image stabilization.

Travel Photography

For travel, size, battery life, versatility, and image quality converge.

The W320 is the go-to if ultracompact portability is a priority. You can slip it in a pocket and forget it’s there, perfect for minimalist travelers.

The W690, with better zoom, image stabilization, and improved ergonomics, suits those prioritizing flexibility and usability over sheer smallness. Its longer battery life (approx. 220 shots) beats the W320, facilitating longer days shooting without frequent recharging.

Professional Use

Both cameras fall short on professional criteria such as raw file support, advanced manual controls, environmental sealing, and compatibility with a broad lens ecosystem.

They are best suited as second, casual cameras or for users prioritizing simplicity and minimalism.

Build Quality, Reliability & Battery Life

Neither camera offers weather sealing, dustproofing, or shock resistance - making them unsuitable for harsh environments or professional shooting conditions.

The W690’s battery (Sony NP-BN) delivers around 220 shots per charge, a solid average for compact cameras. The W320 uses an earlier NP-BN1 model with slightly less performance; exact battery life is unspecified but generally shorter.

Storage-wise, both accept SD/SDHC cards and various Memory Stick formats, with a single slot each.

Connectivity is sparse: no Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, or GPS on either camera. The W320 adds HDMI output; the W690 surprisingly omits it.

Pricing and Value Analysis

At original launch, the W320 sold for approximately $269, while the W690 was priced slightly higher around $297. Given the W690’s improvements - zoom range, stabilization, improved LCD, and video capabilities - it presents a reasonable step up for an incremental price difference.

Today, their used market value has dropped considerably but remains attractive as straightforward, reliable secondary or travel cameras for those unwilling to invest in smartphones or mirrorless systems.

Sony W320 front Sony W320 screen back Sony W690 front Sony W690 screen back

Here, you can examine sample photos taken side-by-side in outdoor daylight, indoor lighting, and macro setups. Notice the W690’s images have marginally better clarity and better color reproduction, attributed to its newer processor and face-detection autofocus.

A Quantitative Summary of Performance

Let’s glance at a consolidated score overview based on measured testing metrics and user experience.

The W690 scores slightly above the W320 in imaging, user experience, and feature set, though neither excels.

Scores By Photography Genre

Diving deeper into genre-specific performance:

• Portraits: W690 favored due to face detection.
• Landscape: Marginal edge for W690.
• Wildlife/Sports: Neither recommended.
• Macro: W690 leads with stabilization.
• Night/Astro: Both weak.
• Video: W690 leaps ahead with HD video.
• Travel: Tradeoff between size (W320) and versatility (W690).
• Professional Work: Not recommended for critical work.

Final Verdict and Recommendations

Both the Sony W320 and W690 embody Sony’s compact, no-frills philosophy from early 2010s, offering entry-level photographers an easy-to-use camera. But the differences can be summarized as follows:

Choose the Sony W320 if:

• Absolute pocketability and minimal size are paramount.
• Your photography is casual snapshots with no need for zoom beyond 4x.
• You are content with VGA-quality video and basic stills.
• You want the simplest, lightest camera possible.

Choose the Sony W690 if:

• You desire more zoom flexibility (10x telephoto is a game changer).
• Optical image stabilization is important, particularly for longer zoom or macro.
• HD video recording improves your multimedia needs.
• Better LCD size and user interface make shooting more enjoyable.
• Face detection autofocus aids in capturing people shots.

Neither camera competes with modern mirrorless or even high-end compact cameras; their small sensors and dated processors mean image quality is firmly entrenched in modest territory. But as highly accessible point-and-shoot cameras, especially in used or budget segments, they still have their place.

If you’re a photography enthusiast needing more control, flexibility, RAW support, or quicker autofocus for action or professional work, I’d advise looking elsewhere - perhaps stepping into the current Sony RX100 lineup or mirrorless entry models.

For hobbyists, travelers, or casual shooters wanting simple, intuitive cameras that still fit the hand well and pocket nicely, these models offer rewarding, if limited, experiences.

In choosing between these two Sony compacts, consider which features align most with your shooting style and priorities. Weigh size against zoom and stabilization, simple operation against video capabilities, and you’ll find your answer.

Happy shooting!

End of Review