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 635
VS
Sensor area
21 mm²
Photosmart 32015 mm²
Photosmart 635- Area ratio
- 1.41:1
- Absolute difference
- 6 mm²
- Relative difference
- 40.6%
The Photosmart 320 has the larger sensor area. More area usually means greater light-gathering potential, though real image quality still depends on sensor architecture and generation.
These cameras were released 1 years apart. Consider sensor generation when comparing pixel metrics.
Key specification differences
Photosmart 320MetricPhotosmart 635
2.1 MPEffective pixels2.1 MP
5.33 × 4Sensor4.5 × 3.37
3.19 µmPixel pitch2.69 µm
10.15 µm²Pixel area7.22 µm²
9.85 MP/cm²Pixel density13.85 MP/cm²
6.49Crop factor7.7
—Maximum video—
160 gWeight190 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 has the larger sensor area. The Photosmart 320 has the lighter body. The Photosmart 320 and Photosmart 635 have the same effective resolution. The Photosmart 635 is the newer release. Also consider the lens system and subjects you shoot.
Reasons to choose Photosmart 635
Released in 2003, Photosmart 635 has about 15 mm² of sensor area, 2.1 MP effective resolution, and a 190 g body. Use these values to narrow the field, not as an overall image-quality score.