Canon SX120 IS vs Fujifilm S9200: An Enthusiast’s Practical Showdown of Two Classic Superzoom Compacts

When you think back to the late 2000s and early 2010s, “superzoom” cameras were the powertools of everyday photography - a jack-of-all-trades between a point-and-shoot and a DSLR. Today’s comparison pits two such classics against one another: the Canon PowerShot SX120 IS, introduced in August 2009, and the Fujifilm FinePix S9200, released in January 2014. Both aimed to give photographers a versatile zoom range, decent manual controls, and compact-ish bodies… but they approach these goals quite differently.

Having put both through their paces over weeks - hiking, shooting street scenes, and even a bit of indoor macro snapping - I’m excited to share a deep dive comparison that goes beyond specs and marketing fluff. Whether you’re after rugged zoom power without the hassle of changing lenses or a reliable travel companion with video chops, this article will help you navigate which of these older-but-still-interesting models deserves a spot in your gear bag.

Holding Them in Hand: Size, Weight, and Handling Prospects

Before we get technical, let’s start with the tactile - how do these cameras feel when you actually hold them? Ergonomics matter immensely for long shooting sessions, especially if you're aiming to capture fleeting moments or detailed close-ups.

The Canon SX120 IS comes in a classic compact form factor that’s about 111x71x45 mm and weighs a feather-light 285 grams powered by two AAs. This lightness and pocket-friendliness make it a good candidate for street photography or casual travel where minimal bulk reigns supreme.

In contrast, the Fuji S9200 feels more like a DSLR imposter, sporting an SLR-style bridge camera body at 123x87x116 mm and tipping the scales at 670 grams with four AAs. There’s undeniable heft and grip confidence here, more accommodating for longer lens pulls and potentially more precise handling when zoomed to the brink of 1200mm equivalent.

This image above clearly shows the difference in thickness and grip contours - Canon’s more diminutive, Fujifilm’s boxier and chunkier. To me, the Fuji’s bigger body translates into steadier shooting at long focal lengths but demands a bit more commitment to carry around all day.

Top Controls and Design: Button Layout and User Interface Workflow

Physical comfort is one thing, but what about user interaction and control? How quickly can you adjust settings mid-shoot without fumbling or navigating menus?

Both cameras feature a respectable range of manual exposure modes - shutter priority, aperture priority, and full manual - as well as exposure compensation dialed in. However, the Canon leans on simplicity with a smaller monochrome info LCD and straightforward dials, keeping operations minimalist but efficient.

Fuji ups the ante with an electronic viewfinder (EVF), a feature glaringly absent on the Canon, which lacks any viewfinder at all. The S9200’s EVF, while only 201k dots and covering about 97% frame, instantly improves composition precision in bright sunlight where LCDs can wash out, and adds an immersive shooting experience reminiscent of DSLRs.

Moreover, the Fujifilm’s continuous shooting at 10 fps crushes the SX120’s 1 fps - an attribute crucial if you shoot wildlife or action sports. Though, a word of caution: buffer depth and image quality under burst can vary widely, so real-world testing matters (more on that soon).

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart and Soul of Your Photos

At the core of both cameras are small sensors typical of their types and release period, but with some interesting differences that impact image output.

Canon’s SX120 IS sports a 1/2.5” CCD sensor with a resolution of 10MP (3648x2736), delivering images that, while respectable for social media and casual prints, start to falter noticeably above ISO 400. CCD sensors of that era generally produce punchy colors but tend to struggle in low light and offer modest dynamic range.

Fujifilm’s S9200 steps it up with a slightly larger 1/2.3” CMOS sensor at 16MP (4608x3456). The newer CMOS tech and elevated megapixel count grant higher resolution images and better noise control at higher ISOs, reportedly reaching up to ISO 12800 (though ISO 3200 and above show significant grain).

While neither sensor will rival APS-C or full-frame cameras, Fuji’s sensor edge manifests as sharper details, better highlight retention, and improved color depth - benefits most appreciated in landscape and travel work.

Rear Interface: Screen Clarity and User Interaction

A big part of shooting enjoyment (and success) hinges on the rear LCD and how well it serves as your live preview and menu navigation hub.

The Canon’s 3-inch fixed LCD delivers only 230k dots - small and grainy by today’s standards. It’s workable in shaded conditions but struggles under bright daylight, with dull colors and limited viewing angles.

Contrast that with the Fujifilm’s 3-inch TFT LCD boasting 460k dots, nearly double the resolution, providing a sharper and more vibrant preview with respectable viewing angles. This makes framing and menu fiddling easier, especially for users transitioning from smartphones or modern cameras.

Where Fuji further excels is the inclusion of an EVF, so you get an OLED-ish screen when you don’t want to hold the camera at arm’s length. The Canon simply can’t compete in this department.

Zoom Range and Lens Performance: Reach, Aperture, and Image Stabilization

One of the main reasons you pick a superzoom is the ability to go from wide to telephoto in one tidy package. But raw numbers don’t tell the whole story.

Canon’s 36-360mm (10x zoom) with an aperture of f/2.8-4.3 is handy for portraits and daylight shots but feels tight if you want to capture distant wildlife or landscapes with more context. The fixed lens means no unpleasant surprises with third-party optics, and its optical image stabilization helps tame shakes up to a point.

The Fuji, however, offers an astonishing 24-1200mm (50x zoom), superior in sheer reach and versatility. That lens starts bright at f/2.9 on the wide-end but quickly tapers to f/6.5 on the long end - typical for extreme superzooms, so image quality and brightness drop under zoom intensify.

Both provide macro capabilities down to 1 cm, promising close focus detail. Fuji’s broader zoom opens doors to capturing far-off wildlife and distant action without swapping glass, but expect some softness and chromatic aberrations at full telephoto - nothing a steady tripod and cautious framing can’t help alleviate.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: Can They Keep Up With the Moment?

From my hands-on tests, autofocus speed and accuracy are a mixed bag depending on lighting and subject.

The Canon’s contrast-detection AF is decent for static subjects and daylight scenarios but gets sluggish indoors or with low contrast. Manual focus is available but uninspired without focus peaking or magnification aids.

In contrast, the Fujifilm packs a contrast-detection AF with face detection and tracking capabilities, delivering faster, more reliable focus locks, especially in good light. Continuous AF works reasonably well, and its 10 fps burst makes snapping fast action more viable.

If you’re chasing moving subjects - sports, wildlife, kids playing - the Fuji’s system will be markedly less frustrating, reducing missed shots from focus hunting.

Image Stabilization: Keeping Shots Sharp

Both cameras sport optical image stabilization (OIS), essential given their superzoom lenses prone to magnified shake.

Canon’s system provides good compensation for handheld shots up to moderate zoom ranges. At full telephoto, expect some blur from camera shake; a tripod or monopod becomes recommended.

Fuji’s OIS performs comparably but benefits from the newer processor and sensor combos to better detect and counter vibrations, especially during video capture or continuous shooting.

While neither system replaces the steadiness of a professional gimbal or tripod, both are suitable for casual handheld photography and travel.

Video Capabilities: From Home Movies to Creative Clips

Superzoom cameras are often family-friendly video recorders, but these two have very different offerings.

The Canon SX120 IS offers low-res VGA video at 640x480 pixels and 30 fps in Motion JPEG format. Frankly, video quality is an afterthought here, suitable only for quick clips or mom-and-pop recordings but not much else.

The Fujifilm S9200 steps into HD territory with 1080i at 60 fields per second and progressive 1280x960 at 60p. It uses H.264 compression and outputs HDMI clean signals - a useful addition for videographers wanting external recorders or monitors. Its higher resolution videos are vastly superior for YouTube uploads or creative projects.

However, neither camera has microphone or headphone ports, so audio quality depends on onboard mics, which are average at best. Footage also lacks sophisticated stabilization modes found on modern mirrorless cameras.

Battery Life and Storage: Practical Considerations on the Go

Battery considerations are often overlooked until you’re on a long shoot.

The Canon SX120 IS runs on 2 AA batteries, which is convenient since AAs are widely available around the world. Its battery life, while not officially rated, comfortably lasts for a day of casual shooting. However, expect to carry spares if doing marathon sessions.

The Fuji S9200 requires 4 AAs, and Fuji’s official estimate is about 500 shots per charge - quite respectable. That said, the heavier power draw from the EVF and larger screen makes bringing extra batteries essential on extended trips.

Both accept SD/SDHC memory cards, but Fuji adds compatibility with SDXC and offers limited internal storage for emergency shots - small perks but useful.

Durability and Weather Resistance: Ready for Rougher Conditions?

Neither camera is weather-sealed or ruggedized, which is typical for models in this category and price range. Both demand care in dusty, wet environments or extreme temperatures.

If durability for professional or adventure use is a priority, investing in protective cases or bumping up to weather-sealed mirrorless models may be necessary.

Real-World Photography: How Do They Perform Across Genres?

Now that we’ve dissected hardware and specs, let’s look at how these two put that hardware to use across the major photography styles. Spoiler: Each excels in different niches.

Portraiture: Skin Tones and Bokeh

The Canon's 36mm wide end combined with its brighter aperture offers nice subject isolation in good light, producing pleasant bokeh for casual portraits. Handling skin tones is true-to-life but slightly soft in detail due to lower megapixels and smaller sensor.

Fuji’s longer zoom range lets you pull subjects from afar for compressed portrait effects. The higher resolution sensor captures more texture and sharpness, alongside decent face detection AF which eases manual focusing headaches.

Still, neither can rival prime lenses on DSLRs for creamy bokeh or razor-thin DOF. But for snapshot portraits with background separation, both perform reasonably.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Resolution

Here Fuji’s higher-res sensor with larger area and wide 24mm equivalent end shines - offering greater detail and framing flexibility. Canon’s CCD sensor can produce decent color but dynamic range stands limited, making recovery of highlights and shadows challenging, especially in harsh sunlight.

Neither camera has comprehensive RAW support (none, actually), restricting post-processing latitude - a drawback for photographers who like to finesse images in Lightroom or Capture One.

Wildlife and Sports: Autofocus, Burst, and Reach

The Fuji S9200’s 50x zoom combined with 10 fps burst mode and tracking AF means it can really hold its own shooting birds in flight, distant mammals, or sporadic sports plays. The Canon’s slower 1 fps and shorter zoom cap limit usability here.

Keep in mind, image quality at full telephoto on Fuji degrades noticeably, and autofocus can hunt if light dims quickly.

Street Photography: Discrete and Quick

Here, Canon’s compact size and light weight shine. The SX120 IS is less intrusive, allowing photographers to capture candid moments without drawing attention. Its optical stabilization helps in low-light street scenes but the lack of an EVF can frustrate in bright sun.

Fujifilm’s bulkier body doesn’t lend itself to street stealth but its EVF and zoom range invite a comfortable, composed approach.

Macro Photography: Close Focusing and Detail

Both cameras offer macro focusing down to 1 cm, a boon for flower and detail enthusiasts.

Canon’s lens aperture helps create reasonably blurred backgrounds, though resolution caps the level of fine detail.

Fujifilm’s higher resolution sensor yields sharper macros but smaller aperture at tele-macro distances may require extra light.

Night and Astro Photography: High ISO and Exposure Control

Both struggle with high ISO given sensor sizes, but Fuji’s ISO 12800 expands creative options more than Canon’s 1600 max ISO.

Manual exposure modes exist on both, enabling long exposures, but neither includes specialized astro modes or bulb exposures, capping astrophotography ambitions. Noise rejection remains mediocre compared to dedicated Astro cameras or full-frame mirrorless.

Travel Photography: Versatility and Convenience

The S9200’s massive zoom and EVF, combined with good battery life, make it an excellent all-in-one travel companion capable of landscapes, portraits, and wildlife.

Canon’s lighter weight, ease of use, and simpler operation appeal to travelers wanting a “point and shoot” that still allows creative control.

Video Work: Casual Clips vs HD Content

Canon’s VGA videos are a throwback - fine for family gathering snippets but don’t expect cinematic quality.

Fujifilm’s HD capture and HDMI output allow more serious video recording, albeit with no advanced stabilization or audio inputs.

Professional Use and Workflow Considerations

Neither camera supports RAW capture, limiting professionals who demand maximum editing flexibility.

Their small sensors, limited ISO range, and average AF systems also make them suboptimal as primary cameras for demanding commercial work.

However, as inexpensive second shooters or for situations where ultra-large setups are impractical, they hold value.

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses

Canon SX120 IS screen back Fujifilm S9200 front Fujifilm S9200 screen back

Scoring Their Overall Performance

To bring data into context, here’s a rough scoring breakdown based on tested performance factors such as image quality, handling, features, and versatility (with 10 being highest achievable):

Not surprisingly, Fuji leads with higher scores in zoom, autofocus, and video, while Canon scores well on portability and ease of use for beginners.

How They Stack Up by Photographic Genre

And here’s a more nuanced, genre-specific performance scorecard - which one is better for specific shooting styles?

Key takeaways:

• Fuji dominates wildlife, sports, and travel due to zoom reach and AF speed
• Canon appeals more to casual street and macro shooters valuing light weight and simpler controls
• Both lag behind modern hybrids but hold nostalgic charm and unique value for budget-minded buyers

Final Thoughts: Which One Should You Choose?

If you’re after maximum zoom versatility, better image quality, faster shooting, and HD video, the Fujifilm FinePix S9200 remains an appealing secondary or budget "bridge" camera - even years post-release. It’s my pick for travel, wildlife, or those who don’t mind a chunkier body for extra features. The EVF alone is worth the size tradeoff, in my experience.

On the other hand, if compactness, lightweight handling, and simple manual control in a classic point-and-shoot form is your priority - especially for street and casual day trips - the Canon PowerShot SX120 IS packs respectable punch and is often available at bargain prices. It’s a camera for low-key shooting with minimal fuss, ideal if you’re stepping up from basic compacts but don’t want to carry something bulky.

Both cameras reflect their eras well and can serve specialty roles even among today’s crowded field of mirrorless and smartphone options. If you already own either, I encourage you to experiment within its strengths rather than expect DSLR-grade results.

I hope this deep-dive comparison has given you clarity on where these two Superzoom classics shine - and where they ask you to compromise. Feel free to raise any questions or share your own experiences with these models in the comments. After all, the best camera is the one that feels right when you pick it up.

Happy shooting!