Reasons to choose Photosmart 320
Released in 2002, Photosmart 320 has about 21 mm² of sensor area, 2.1 MP effective resolution, and a 160 g body. Use these values to narrow the field, not as an overall image-quality score.
Side-by-side comparison
HP Photosmart 320
vs HP Photosmart 435
VS
Sensor area
21 mm²
Photosmart 32021 mm²
Photosmart 435- Area ratio
- 1:1
- Absolute difference
- 0 mm²
- Relative difference
- 0%
The Photosmart 320 and Photosmart 435 have the same sensor area. Compare pixel density, sensor architecture, and release generation to understand likely image-quality differences.
These cameras were released 1 years apart. Consider sensor generation when comparing pixel metrics.
Key specification differences
Photosmart 320MetricPhotosmart 435
2.1 MPEffective pixels3.34 MP
5.33 × 4Sensor5.33 × 4
3.19 µmPixel pitch2.53 µm
10.15 µm²Pixel area6.38 µm²
9.85 MP/cm²Pixel density15.67 MP/cm²
6.49Crop factor6.49
—Maximum video—
160 gWeight133 g
MultiMedia, Secure DigitalStorageMultiMedia, Secure Digital
AA (4) batteries (NiMH recommended)BatteryAA (2) batteries (NiMH recommended)
Amber marks the value that is generally preferable in this comparison context. It is not an overall camera score.
How to choose between these cameras
The Photosmart 320 and Photosmart 435 have the same sensor area. The Photosmart 435 has the lighter body. The Photosmart 435 has the higher effective resolution. The Photosmart 435 is the newer release. Also consider the lens system and subjects you shoot.
Reasons to choose Photosmart 435
Released in 2003, Photosmart 435 has about 21 mm² of sensor area, 3.34 MP effective resolution, and a 133 g body. Use these values to narrow the field, not as an overall image-quality score.