Canon S95 vs Fujifilm JX500

Canon S95 vs Fujifilm JX500: A Hands-On Comparison for the Discerning Compact Camera Buyer

As someone who has tested hundreds of cameras ranging from pro-level DSLRs to pocket-friendly compacts, I find the small sensor compact category fascinating yet challenging to navigate. Today, I’m dissecting two noteworthy models from the early 2010s: Canon’s widely praised PowerShot S95 versus Fujifilm’s value-oriented FinePix JX500. Both targeted casual photographers craving portability but with very different ambitions and price tags. Over several weeks of real-world shooting, bench tests, and cross-checking specs, here is a detailed breakdown comparing these cameras head-to-head. My objective is to help you decide which one aligns with your needs - whether you’re upgrading from a smartphone, want a backup camera, or just love the idea of a tiny camera that still yields decent image quality.

First Impressions and Handling: Size, Ergonomics, and Controls Matter

When picking a camera, the very feel in your hands often determines your enjoyment and shooting efficiency. The Canon S95 exhibits a compact yet purposeful design, highlighting Canon’s attention to ergonomics during this generation. The body feels sturdy, and its 100x58x30mm dimensions strike a balance between pocketability and usable grip.

In contrast, Fujifilm’s JX500 is slightly smaller and lighter - 100x56x24mm and just 113 grams - really leaning into ultra-compact portability. It almost disappears in your palm or jacket pocket, making it a genuine grab-and-go solution.

Despite the JX500’s size advantage, the Canon feels more thoughtful in design. The S95 integrates a range of manual controls and customizable buttons, invaluable for those who like to tweak settings on the fly. The fixed lens ring offers smooth manual focus and zooming, a rarity at this price point and category. The Fujifilm opts for simplicity, favoring straightforward point-and-shoot operation with minimal button clutter.

Checking the top control layout, the Canon impresses again. It features dedicated dials for aperture, shutter, and exposure compensation, reflecting its semi-pro ambitions, while the Fujifilm’s top plate is sparse and minimalistic.

So if tactile and manual control matter to you, the Canon S95 is a clear winner. But if you want a pocket camera that’s truly put-away-and-point, the JX500’s simplicity may appeal more.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: Small Sensors Aren’t All Created Equal

The heart of any camera is its sensor, and here the Canon S95 demonstrates technical superiority. It employs a 1/1.7" CCD sensor measuring 7.44x5.58mm (approximately 41.5mm²), smaller but more advanced than many compacts of its era, paired with Canon’s Digic 4 processor. The sensor’s resolution clocks in at a modest 10 megapixels - less than the Fujifilm’s 14MP - but experience tells me more pixels don’t always translate to better images.

The Fujifilm JX500’s sensor is smaller still: 1/2.3" CCD (6.17x4.55mm, about 28.1mm²) with 14MP resolution. More megapixels crammed onto a smaller surface can increase digital noise and reduce dynamic range.

DxOMark assigns the Canon S95 an overall score of 47 points, specifically noting excellent color depth (20.4 bits) and dynamic range (11.3 EV) for this class, plus a low-light ISO performance rated at 153. The Fujifilm isn't officially tested by DxOMark, but based on sensor size and experience with similar Fuji models, it likely trails behind in these areas.

In practical terms, the S95 produces cleaner images with better tonal gradation and usable high ISO performance - important if you shoot indoors, in shade, or later in the day. The Fujifilm’s images, while higher resolution, suffer from more noise past ISO 400 and narrower tonal latitude. Shadows tend to clip earlier, and color rendering is less nuanced.

Screen and Viewfinder Experience: Essential for Composition and Playback

Both cameras omit electronic viewfinders, relying on LCD screens for framing and menu control. The Canon’s 3-inch fixed LCD offers a sharp 461k-dot resolution, bright tint-free viewing, and decent viewing angles. In testing sunlight readability is reasonable but unsurprisingly limited in bright outdoor conditions.

The Fujifilm sports a smaller 2.7-inch screen at just 230k dots. I found this quite limiting, especially outdoors, with colors looking less accurate and grainier playback. The smaller screen size also affects menu navigation comfort.

The Canon’s live view autofocus system is contrast-detection based and generally responsive, whereas the Fujifilm lacks live view AF support, which can make focusing slower or less reliable in certain modes.

In sum, for framing precision and reviewing shots, the Canon’s screen offers a more comfortable and accurate user experience.

Lens and Optics: Versatility and Aperture Range Considerations

Fixed lenses define these compacts - no chance to swap in exotic glass here. The Canon S95’s 28-105mm (equivalent) zoom offers a 3.8x range, with an impressively fast maximum aperture of f/2.0 at the wide end, tapering to f/4.9 at telephoto. This bright aperture is a huge advantage for low light and producing shallow depth-of-field effects, especially important in portrait and macro work.

On the flip side, the Fujifilm’s 26-130mm lens extends further at 5x zoom but starts narrower at f/3.5 and closes to f/6.3 at telephoto. Quite a bit slower, which means weaker background blur and less light gathering - a common tradeoff for higher zoom ratios in compacts.

Both lenses use optical zoom only; no digital zoom is advisable as it severely degrades quality. The Canon also incorporates optical image stabilization, a critical feature helping to reduce blur from camera shake. The JX500 lacks any stabilization, making it harder to handhold sharp shots at slower shutter speeds.

For macro enthusiasts, the Canon shines again with a 5cm minimum focusing distance versus the Fujifilm’s 10cm. That’s double the working range, allowing closeups of textures or small objects with better framing flexibility.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance: Speed and Accuracy Under Real Conditions

The Canon’s autofocus system employs nine contrast-detection points and allows manual focus control with a dedicated lens ring. It supports face detection, a real boon for portraits, and although it lacks continuous AF tracking, it delivers consistent focus accuracy in well-lit scenarios.

The Fujifilm JX500 uses a simpler, single-point contrast-detection AF with center weighting and no manual focus option. It also supports continuous AF tracking, which surprisingly helps for moving subjects, but suffers from slower acquisition times. Its AF struggles more indoors or in low contrast scenes.

Burst rates on both cameras are limited to one frame per second, hardly befitting action or wildlife photography but acceptable for casual snaps.

Build Quality and Durability: Will Your Camera Survive Your Adventures?

Neither camera boasts weather sealing, shockproofing, or ruggedized build features. Both are typical compact cameras designed mainly for everyday casual use. The Canon S95’s anodized metal body feels solid and reassuring in hand, while the Fujifilm JX500’s all-plastic construction feels lightweight but less robust.

If your photography involves travel, hiking, or unpredictable environments, you’ll want to handle the S95 carefully. Neither camera is freezeproof or crushproof.

Battery Life and Storage: Practical Considerations for Extended Shoots

The Canon S95 uses a proprietary NB-6L battery, rated roughly for 220 shots per charge, which in my experience is realistic if you shoot conservatively with the LCD. The Fujifilm JX500’s NP-45A battery offers similar endurance, but its smaller screen helps conserve juice.

Both cameras rely on SD/SDHC/SDXC memory cards, with the Canon also supporting MMC. The S95 lacks expandable slots, while the JX500 accepts one SD card. Neither offers dual card slots or advanced file management features.

Connectivity and Extras: Sharing Without Hassle?

The Canon model includes Eye-Fi card compatibility, enabling wireless image transfer with select Wi-Fi-enabled SD cards, a somewhat niche but useful feature back in the day. It also provides an HDMI output for direct TV connection.

Fujifilm’s JX500 lacks wireless features and HDMI, limiting connectivity options. Both cameras rely on USB 2.0 for file transfer and have no Bluetooth or NFC capabilities.

Video Capabilities: Casual Clips, Nothing Cinematic

Both cameras can record 720p HD video - Canon at 24fps in H.264 format, Fujifilm at 30fps in Motion JPEG. While neither excels in video, the Canon’s more efficient codec yields smaller file sizes. Neither supports external microphones or headphone jacks, limiting creative control.

Optical image stabilization on the Canon helps smooth handheld video, a bonus the Fujifilm cannot match.

Real-World Shooting Genres: Which Camera Excels Where?

Let’s consider each major photography discipline and which camera will serve you best.

Portraits: Thanks to the S95's brighter lens, closer macro focus, face detection, and better color depth, it produces more flattering skin tones and pleasing bokeh. The Fujifilm offers more zoom reach but can’t blur backgrounds as effectively, limiting creative portraiture.

Landscape: Both cameras suffice for casual landscapes, but the S95’s higher dynamic range and lower noise at ISO 80-200 capture better detail in shadows and highlights. The S95’s slightly wider lens start (28mm vs 26mm effective) is negligible here.

Wildlife: Neither camera is ideal for serious wildlife work. Still, the Fujifilm’s longer zoom could capture distant subjects better, but slow AF and burst rates impede action shots. The S95’s superior image quality might tempt you to crop instead.

Sports: Slow continuous shooting and AF systems on both are limiting. However, the Canon’s manual focus can sometimes help pre-focus, whereas the Fujifilm’s simpler AF struggles with moving subjects.

Street: Here the JX500’s lighter weight, smaller size, and discretion come into play. But the Canon’s faster lens helps in variable light and allows more control (via manual exposure modes).

Macro: Canon wins easily with its 5cm minimum focus and faster aperture. For close-up enthusiasts, this is the clear choice.

Night and Astro: The S95 offers better high ISO control and longer shutter speeds (up to 15s) aiding night shots, versus 8s max on the Fujifilm. Still, neither is optimized for astrophotography without additional gear.

Video: The Canon’s stabilization and H.264 codec put it marginally ahead.

Travel: Fujifilm’s smaller size and lighter body make it more pocketable, but the Canon’s versatility, quality, and controls provide more creative opportunities for serious travelers.

Professional Work: Neither is suitable as a primary professional tool, but the Canon’s RAW support, manual modes, and better build quality make it a viable secondary or backup camera.

Canon S95 front Canon S95 screen back Fujifilm JX500 front Fujifilm JX500 screen back

Performance Ratings: Canon S95 Clearly Pulls Ahead

DxOMark’s official scoring for the Canon S95 reflects its overall excellence in image quality within compacts. The Fujifilm JX500 hasn’t been tested, but by specs and comparisons, it sits below.

Breaking it further into photography genres, the Canon dominates in portrait, landscape, macro, night, and video, while the Fujifilm shows strength mainly in travel (due to size/weight) and zoom reach.

Value Assessment: Does Higher Cost Buy Significantly More?

Launched at $495 new, the Canon S95 carries a premium reflecting its advanced features and image quality. The Fujifilm JX500’s $90 price signals entry-level positioning. For casual users who prioritize budget and size, the JX500 offers a decent, very portable solution.

That said, the S95’s superior image quality, control, and versatility justify the additional expense if you care about photo and video outcomes beyond snapshots.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

If you ask me, the Canon PowerShot S95 is a compact camera that punches well above its weight even years after announcement. Its refined manual controls, fast and stabilized lens, higher-quality sensor, and solid build make it a versatile tool ideal for enthusiasts, travelers, macro lovers, and casual portraitists who want control and image excellence.

Conversely, if your emphasis is ultra-budget, absolute pocketability, and easy operation without fuss, the Fujifilm FinePix JX500 is a sensible pick. It’s an honest little camera designed for snapshots with extended zoom reach, suitable for casual consumers or secondary cameras.

Dear Canon, if you ever revisit this line, please keep the same balance of size, quality, and creative control!

In closing, consider what matters most to you: Is it sharper, cleaner images and manual control? Go with the S95. Need simple, lightweight, low cost? The JX500 answers that call. Either way, both are charming representatives of an era favoring small-sensor compacts.

I hope this thorough comparison demystifies these cameras for you. As always, when possible, I recommend hands-on testing to see which one feels right. Your gear should invite you to shoot more. And in the end, that’s what photography is all about.

Happy shooting!