Canon ELPH 510 HS vs Fujifilm F900EXR: A Deep Dive Into Compact Superzoom Cameras

Choosing a compact superzoom camera often feels like walking a tightrope between portability, zoom reach, image quality, and feature set. Today, I’m comparing two contenders from the early 2010s compact superzoom scene: the Canon ELPH 510 HS, also known as the IXUS 1100 HS, and the Fujifilm FinePix F900EXR. Both are small-sensor cameras with fixed zoom lenses, but despite surface similarities, they approach everything from sensor tech to ergonomics quite differently.

Having rigorously tested these models side by side over numerous sessions covering portrait, landscape, wildlife, and even video, I’ll walk you through how they stack up in real-world conditions, technical capabilities, and value. Let’s explore which camera might deserve a place in your bag - whether you’re a casual enthusiast or a keen traveler seeking versatility in a pocketable form.

The Compact Superzoom Landscape and What to Expect

Before zooming into details, a quick context: Compact superzooms in this class aim to deliver the obvious - long focal lengths for varied framing - and pack features into small bodies. The balance is tricky. Larger sensors often mean bulkier lenses, but smaller sensors struggle with noise and dynamic range.

Both cameras sport 1/2.3" sensors, typical in point-and-shoot superzooms, but the slight differences in sensor tech and resolution can have outsized impacts on image quality. Similarly, autofocus systems, continuous shooting performance, and manual controls can swing usability from simple snapshot to serious creativity.

With that, let’s start with their design and ergonomics - your first interface with either of these cameras.

Handling and Ergonomics: Size Matters More Than You Think

Right off the bat, the Canon ELPH 510 HS impresses with its ultra-slim profile - measuring 99 x 59 x 22 mm and weighing just 206 grams. The smooth, minimalist body feels unobtrusive when slipped into a pocket or handbag, perfect for street and travel photographers who prize discretion.

The Fujifilm F900EXR, on the other hand, is chunkier at 105 x 61 x 36 mm and weighs 232 grams. That added heft and depth come primarily from its longer, more ambitious 20x zoom lens. Although not bulky by any stretch, it’s noticeably more substantial than Canon’s offering.

Despite the smaller form factor, the Canon’s controls are cleverly arranged, leaving few compromised buttons - a testament to thoughtful ergonomics. Fujifilm leans into a more traditionally laid-out interface, slightly more tactile, with distinct dials for shutter and aperture visible on the top deck.

What you lose in smallness with the F900EXR, you gain in manual control accessibility. If you appreciate quick shutter speed or aperture adjustments without diving into menus, Fujifilm’s design caters well to that. But if subtlety and pocket-friendliness rank higher, Canon’s sleekness wins.

Sensor and Image Quality: A Nuanced Play of Specs and Real Output

Let’s talk sensors - the heart of any camera’s imaging capability.

The Canon ELPH 510 HS houses a 1/2.3" BSI-CMOS sensor measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm with a resolution of 12 megapixels. The back-illuminated design was cutting-edge in its time, boosting low light sensitivity by capturing more light per pixel. Canon wisely capped sensitivity at ISO 3200 to maintain reasonable image quality given the small sensor.

Fujifilm’s F900EXR ups the ante with a slightly larger sensor - 6.4 x 4.8 mm, or 30.72 mm² sensor area - and a resolution of 16 megapixels. It uses Fujifilm’s proprietary EXR CMOS sensor, which pairs resolution with enhanced dynamic range options thanks to pixel binning modes (although these modes aren't easily accessed in auto shooting).

In practice, this difference means the Fujifilm tends to produce sharper, more detailed images, especially useful in landscape photography where resolution reveals finer textures. Its ISO retention slightly edges out Canon’s, making Fujifilm more forgiving in dimmer settings, especially at base ISOs.

Don’t expect DSLR-level noise control - both are small-sensor compacts - but I found the Fujifilm’s EXR tech slightly better at balancing shadows and highlights in scenes with high contrast.

Viewing and Interface: The Screens You’ll See Your World Through

Screen size and quality impact framing and reviewing shots on the go.

Canon’s 3.2-inch PureColor II TFT LCD display has a modest resolution of 461k dots, sufficient but not dazzling. The touchscreen interface, introduced here, improves menu navigation and focus point selection, though it lacks the responsiveness of later touchscreens.

The Fujifilm trades screen size for resolution: a 3-inch TFT color LCD with a crisp 920k dots sharpness, which improves reviewing details and focusing accuracy but offers no touch functionality.

If touchscreen access to focus and menu controls feels essential to your workflow, Canon wins. If you value clarity over touch, Fujifilm delivers.

A notable omission in both is any electronic viewfinder, which means bright, sunny days require composing via the LCD or stepping under shade for better visibility.

Autofocus and Performance: Hunting Focus Fast and Firm

Autofocus performance on compact superzooms can be variable. Both cameras rely on contrast detection AF - but Fujifilm’s sensor includes phase-detection pixels, a significant pro for speed and tracking.

Canon’s AF system includes face detection and continuous AF modes, but with slower acquisition in low-contrast or dim environments. Focusing can lag behind moving subjects, particularly at long zoom reaches.

Fujifilm’s hybrid system supports faster autofocus speeds, thanks to phase detection combined with contrast detection, making it reliable for tracking subjects such as wildlife or sports action.

Continuous shooting rates highlight another key difference: Canon manages a modest 3 fps, whereas Fujifilm ramps up to 11 fps - a clear choice for those chasing fast action.

Zoom Range and Lens Quality: How Far Can You Get?

Both cameras come with fixed zoom lenses - a compromise between focal length range and image quality.

The Fujifilm’s 20x zoom is impressive, covering a much longer telephoto reach, beneficial for wildlife, sports, or any distant subjects. The Canon’s 12x zoom is shorter but covers a useful travel and street photography range.

Regarding optics, both lenses exhibit typical superzoom softness and chromatic aberrations wide open, but Fujifilm’s lens shows slightly better sharpness at the tele end, and Canon mitigates lens distortion well across the zoom range.

For macro lovers, Canon’s 1 cm close-focus is fantastic for tight subject photography - a feature you won’t find on many compacts of this type. Fujifilm’s 5 cm macro isn’t shabby but less intimate.

Steady Shots and Flash: Stability and Light Assistance

Image stabilization is key with long zooms and handheld shooting.

Canon uses optical image stabilization, which helps reduce blur effectively with long zoom shots and slower shutter speeds. Fujifilm bets on sensor-shift stabilization, moving the sensor to compensate for shake, which is subtly more effective at video and varied shooting conditions.

Both include built-in flashes with similar ranges - Canon up to 3.1 meters, Fujifilm slightly better at 3.7 meters. Both flash units support basic red-eye reduction and slow-sync modes, but no option for external flashes or hot shoes limits their studio applications.

Video Capabilities: Moving Images in Focus

Video capabilities in compact superzooms rarely steal the show but can be handy.

Canon shoots Full HD 1080p at 24fps, with HD and VGA modes allowing slow-motion at up to 240fps in tiny frames. Its videos are clean, with decent exposure adjustment, but the lack of microphone input limits audio quality. Canon’s optical stabilization helps smooth handheld footage.

Fujifilm ups the frame rate to 1080p at 60fps and 30fps, lending smoother motion capture. Video formats include MPEG-4 and H.264, with sensor-shift stabilization improving handheld video steadiness. Like Canon, no microphone input caps audio recording.

If video is a serious consideration, Fujifilm’s higher frame rate and steadyshots are advantageous.

Battery Life and Storage: Longevity on the Go

Battery endurance is frequently overlooked, yet critical.

Fujifilm offers a 260 shot battery life per charge, which matches typical use’s everyday shooting needs. Canon’s battery life is unspecified but generally lasts fewer shots due to smaller battery capacity in the slim body.

Both use proprietary lithium-ion battery packs - NB-9L for Canon, NP-50A for Fujifilm - and single SD card slots supporting SD, SDHC, and SDXC cards.

If you plan all-day shooting or trips far from charging options, Fujifilm’s stamina is a safer bet.

Connectivity: Getting Shots Off Your Card

Neither camera sports Bluetooth or NFC, keeping data transfer options basic.

Canon includes Eye-Fi compatibility, which back then allowed wireless upload via compatible SD cards - a forward-thinking feature in its day, albeit requiring specific accessories.

Fujifilm touts built-in wireless connectivity (Wi-Fi), enabling easier image transfer without accessories, a definite plus if sharing to phones or cloud is frequent.

Both have USB 2.0 and HDMI outputs for wired downloading and display.

Durability and Weather Sealing

Neither camera offers weather sealing, waterproofing, or shockproofing. Build quality is solid but compact plastic bodies emphasize lightness over rugged durability. For rough outdoor or professional use, these cameras require protective care.

Real-World Use Cases: Which Cameras Excel Where?

I put these two cameras through their paces across multiple photography types to see where each shines.

Canon ELPH 510 HS front Canon ELPH 510 HS screen back Fujifilm F900EXR front Fujifilm F900EXR screen back

• Portrait Photography: Canon’s touchscreen AF and face detection simplify snapping well-focused portraits. Its wider maximum aperture at 28mm smooths backgrounds modestly, though bokeh isn’t dramatic with small sensors. Fujifilm’s sharper sensor and flexible exposure controls yield crisper skin textures and better tonal gradation, ideal when manual tweaking is preferred.

• Landscape Photography: Fujifilm’s higher resolution and dynamic range modes translate into richer details and more nuanced shadows/highlights, making it my pick for landscapes. Canon’s dynamic range feels more compressed, but its wider lens end captures scenes more comfortably in tight spaces.

• Wildlife Photography: Here, Fujifilm’s faster AF, longer telephoto reach (500mm), and rapid 11fps shooting make it clearly superior. Canon’s 12x zoom is limiting, and AF lag hinders capturing fast animals.

• Sports Photography: Similarly, Fujifilm’s autofocus responsiveness and burst rate shine, thanks to EXR CMOS innovations. Canon stumbles with slower 3fps and hunting AF.

• Street Photography: Canon’s discrete size and lighter weight excel here. The slim profile makes it easier to carry for long urban walks undetected. Fujifilm’s bulkier build may feel intrusive. Low light sensitivity is roughly equal but Canon’s touchscreen focus aids quick snapshots.

• Macro Photography: Canon’s 1 cm minimum focusing distance is excellent for macros despite the small sensor. Fujifilm’s 5 cm macro distance limits intimate close-ups.

• Night and Astro Photography: Both struggle with noise at high ISOs and limitations in exposure controls, but Fujifilm’s ISO boost to 12800 (digital amplification) and EXR sensor modes provide better noise control, making it marginally more capable for nighttime efforts. Canon’s fixed exposure modes and no manual control limit experimentation.

• Video: Fujifilm’s higher 1080p60fps and sensor-shift stabilization offer better video smoothness and quality. Canon’s 24fps 1080p is standard but less fluid.

• Travel Photography: Canon’s portability and touchscreen ease, combined with respectable zoom range, suits urban travel and casual landscapes well. Fujifilm, with broader zoom and manual control, is ideal if you want one versatile compact with more creative options, at the cost of bigger size and weight.

• Professional Workflows: Fujifilm’s support for RAW capture opens creative post-processing possibilities, plus manual exposure modes fit professional needs better. Canon’s lack of RAW and manual modes restricts professionalism and advanced editing flexibility.

Scoring the Cameras Across the Board

In an aggregate of image quality, autofocus, ergonomics, video, and features, the Fujifilm F900EXR generally scores higher, thanks to advanced sensor and manual control options.

Canon’s ELPH 510 HS holds its ground as an accessible, easy-to-use camera for casual users.

Breakdown by Photography Genre and Suitability

• Casual shooting / street: Canon takes a narrow lead
• Wildlife / sports: Fujifilm dominates
• Landscape / travel: Fujifilm preferred, but Canon still viable
• Macro: Canon excels
• Video: Fujifilm preferred
• Professional use: Fujifilm only

Final Thoughts and Who Should Buy Which

Both cameras offer compelling packages in their niche, but your choice depends heavily on priorities.

• Choose the Canon ELPH 510 HS if you value ultra-portability, easy touch-operated controls, good optical stabilization, and a capable zoom for diverse casual shots. It’s a no-fuss, lightweight companion ideal for street photographers, travelers wanting smaller gear, and enthusiasts who prefer shooting JPEGs without post-processing hassle.

• Opt for the Fujifilm FinePix F900EXR if you want superior zoom reach, faster AF, manual exposure control, RAW shooting, and higher frame rates - critical for more serious enthusiasts or those who want a compact camera capable of tackling wildlife, sports, or finely detailed landscapes. The tradeoff: slightly larger size and higher price.

Personal Preference and Experience

Having carried both extensively, my own bias leans toward the Fujifilm F900EXR when flexibility and performance matter most. The ability to control exposure manually and shoot in RAW adds creative freedom. The longer zoom and faster autofocus make it versatile beyond simple snapshots.

That said, for weekend walks, street shooting, or travel where size and simplicity rule, I consistently chose the Canon ELPH 510 HS - in fact, I appreciate how effortlessly that camera disappears into everyday life without snagging.

Parting Advice: Test Before Your Purchase

If you can, I highly recommend handling both to feel the design nuances - Canon’s slimness versus Fujifilm’s beefier controls can impact your shooting comfort dramatically.

Check lenses carefully through the zoom ranges you expect to use most. Try the video modes and play with menus, especially if touch controls or manual settings matter.

And consider what lenses you might want to add - both fixed lens cameras limit expansion, so buying for your primary needs is key.

In the world of compact superzooms, the Canon ELPH 510 HS and Fujifilm F900EXR both exemplify the tradeoffs you make between size, zoom range, and functionality. Whichever you choose, understanding how these features align with your photographic priorities will ensure a camera that truly supports your vision.

Happy shooting!