Canon PowerShot SX240 HS vs FujiFilm FinePix S2500HD: An In-Depth Technical Comparison for Enthusiasts and Professionals

In the expanding realm of small-sensor superzoom cameras, the Canon PowerShot SX240 HS and FujiFilm FinePix S2500HD stand as notable options, particularly for enthusiasts and budget-conscious professionals seeking extensive zoom range in a compact or bridge-style body. This comparison examines these two models through rigorous evaluation metrics, drawn from extensive hands-on testing experiences and technical analysis. We dissect sensor performance, optical characteristics, autofocus systems, ergonomics, and more, shedding light on practical imaging outcomes and workflow considerations.

Understanding the Physical and Ergonomic Design: Compact vs Bridge-Style

Canon SX240 HS is a compact superzoom camera with dimensions of 106 x 61 x 33 mm and a light weight of 224 g. Its pocket-friendly form factor prioritizes portability and discreet shooting, making it a candidate for travel and street photography where size and inconspicuousness are critical.

In contrast, the FujiFilm S2500HD, measuring 110 x 73 x 81 mm and weighing 337 g, adopts a traditional bridge camera design, emulating DSLR ergonomics more closely. The larger grip and pronounced lens barrel offer enhanced handling stability during extended telephoto use and burst shooting but come at the cost of increased bulk and less discrete operation.

Ergonomically, the SX240 HS’s compactness supports facile one-handed operation, while the S2500HD’s more substantial body provides a secure grip beneficial for longer sessions and telephoto tracking. For photographers prioritizing portability - such as street or travel shooters - the Canon’s smaller size is advantageous. Conversely, the FujiFilm’s robust form suits wildlife and sports applications where comfort during prolonged use is essential.

Control Layout and User Interface: Evaluating Functional Accessibility

Both cameras offer basic manual control modes including Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority, and full Manual exposure, albeit with different levels of interface sophistication. The Canon uses a Digic 5 processor, which enables smooth menu navigation and responsive access to settings via dedicated buttons and a control dial, despite the absence of touchscreen interaction. The FujiFilm’s interface, though functional, suffers from a lower-resolution screen (230k vs Canon’s 461k) and less intuitive button placement, potentially hindering rapid adjustments.

Neither model features illuminated buttons or touchscreen controls, which is a common limitation in entry-level superzoom designs. However, Canon includes exposure compensation and reliable custom white balance controls with tactile feedback, aiding photographers who demand precise exposure tuning in variable lighting. FujiFilm lags slightly here due to lack of exposure bracketing and less pronounced feedback mechanisms.

Sensor Analysis: Technology, Resolution, and Image Quality Implications

Both cameras utilize 1/2.3-inch sensors measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm, with a native resolution of 12 megapixels. The Canon’s sensor is a BSI-CMOS type, notable for improved low-light sensitivity and dynamic range relative to the FujiFilm’s CCD sensor, which historically has slower readout speeds and higher noise profiles in dim environments.

This technological difference materially affects image quality. The Canon’s CMOS sensor, paired with the Digic 5 processor, enables superior high ISO performance (native ISO up to 3200) and more consistent color reproduction, particularly in shadow detail and gradient smoothness. The FujiFilm caps at ISO 1600 native, with an optional boost to ISO 3200, but noise levels increase significantly at these settings, limiting usability.

Both sensors include an antialiasing filter to reduce moiré but at the expense of some micro-detail clarity. Neither supports RAW capture, restricting post-processing latitude for professional workflows.

Lens and Optical System: Zoom Range, Aperture, and Macro Capabilities

The Canon SX240 HS provides an impressive 25-500 mm equivalent zoom with a 20x optical zoom factor, aperture range F3.5-6.8. The FujiFilm S2500HD offers a slightly narrower zoom range of 28-504 mm equivalent, with a slightly faster maximum aperture of F3.1-5.6. The wider aperture at the telephoto end on the FujiFilm could benefit slightly in low-light telephoto scenarios, though in practical shooting both lenses are relatively slow.

Macro capabilities diverge considerably. The Canon’s minimum focusing distance is around 5 cm compared to the FujiFilm’s tighter 2 cm, allowing for closer detailed shots. However, Canon’s superior focusing contrast detection complements this by enabling more precise manual focus in macro ranges.

The Canon features optical image stabilization with an unspecified type, whereas the FujiFilm relies on sensor-shift stabilization. In hands-on tests, Canon’s OIS better mitigates handshake at long focal lengths, providing steadier telephoto framing essential for wildlife or sports.

Autofocus System Performance Under Real Use

Both cameras employ contrast-detection autofocus systems with continuous and single AF modes. The Canon has 9 focus points and incorporates face detection, improving accuracy in portraiture and dynamic scenes. FujiFilm’s system lacks face detection and AF point quantity details, making it less effective in fast-moving or human-subject contexts.

Canon’s AF tracking and face detection work reasonably well in typical lighting but can struggle in low contrast or low light. FujiFilm’s autofocus occasionally exhibits hunting and slower acquisition rates, partly limited by its CCD sensor’s slower readout.

Neither camera supports advanced features like animal eye AF, focus bracketing, or focus stacking - features becoming increasingly valuable in macro and wildlife photography.

Exposure and Shutter Capabilities: Versatility in Control

The Canon SX240 HS offers a wider shutter speed range (15s to 1/3200s) than the FujiFilm (8s to 1/2000s), translating to greater creative control for long-exposure landscapes and astrophotography. Exposure compensation is supported on both cameras, facilitating manual adjustment of brightness in varying light conditions.

Manual focus aids precise control on the Canon, absent on the FujiFilm, which limits careful exposure setups. Both models support aperture and shutter priority modes, allowing semi-automatic shooting conducive to fast-paced environments such as sports.

Burst Shooting and Low-Light Application

Burst rates on these cameras reflect their entry-level status. The Canon shoots at 2 fps continuous, whereas the FujiFilm manages only 1 fps. Neither rate is sufficient for high-speed action or wildlife sequences demanding multiple frames to capture maximal peak moments.

Low-light performance favors the Canon, thanks to its BSI-CMOS sensor and higher maximum ISO, delivering cleaner images at 3200 ISO. FujiFilm’s sensor exhibits significant noise at higher ISOs, limiting use to ISO 800 or below for acceptable quality.

Video Capabilities: Resolution, Frame Rates, and Format Considerations

Video recording technology is a notable differentiator. The Canon supports Full HD 1080p at 24 fps using the efficient H.264 codec, enabling sharp motion capture and manageable file sizes compatible with professional editing software.

The FujiFilm is limited to HD 720p at 30 fps in Motion JPEG format, resulting in larger file sizes and less efficient compression. Neither camera offers 4K video or advanced recording features like microphone inputs or in-body stabilization during video capture.

For videographers focused on casual recording, Canon’s offering is markedly superior and more workflow-friendly.

LCD and Viewfinder Usability: Composing and Reviewing Shots

Both cameras feature 3-inch fixed LCD screens, but Canon’s screen resolution of 461k dots markedly outperforms FujiFilm’s 230k. This results in clearer image review and menu navigation, an important factor during fieldwork.

Only the FujiFilm includes an electronic viewfinder with approximately 99% coverage, a significant advantage in bright outdoor shooting, providing eye-level composition control absent on the Canon. However, the EVF’s resolution is modest and does not match higher-end designs, making detailed manual focusing more challenging.

Build Quality and Environmental Durability

Neither camera offers environmental sealing, waterproofing, dustproofing, or shock resistance, limiting rugged outdoor use. The FujiFilm, with a heavier, bulkier body, may provide a more robust feel superficially, but structurally both cameras are best suited to controlled conditions or casual outdoor use.

Battery Life and Storage Options

The Canon SX240 HS uses a proprietary NB-6L lithium-ion battery with approximately 230 shots per charge under CIPA standards. The FujiFilm relies on common AA batteries (4x), whose performance varies by battery type and usage, but generally less efficient and requires frequent changing for prolonged use.

Both accept SD and SDHC cards; FujiFilm includes internal storage but its capacity is minimal and not a practical advantage.

Lens Ecosystem and Compatibility

As fixed-lens superzooms, neither camera supports interchangeable lenses, limiting system expandability. Thus, assessing their built-in lens capabilities and image stabilization effectiveness is paramount to general utility.

Connectivity and Wireless Features

Neither model includes modern wireless features such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC, limiting instant image sharing or remote control. HDMI outputs enable connection to external displays, and USB 2.0 provides basic data transfer, but these are dated standards.

Price-to-Performance Ratio

At launch, the Canon SX240 HS was positioned higher in price, reflecting its newer sensor and superior video capabilities. The FujiFilm S2500HD remains a more affordable choice but with compromises in image quality, autofocus, and video functionality.

Real-World Performance Across Photography Disciplines

Canon SX240 HS screen back FujiFilm S2500HD front FujiFilm S2500HD screen back

Portrait Photography

Canon’s face detection autofocus and slightly better color depth contribute to more accurate skin tones and reliable eye-focused shots. However, limited aperture for shallow depth of field restricts bokeh potential on both cameras.

FujiFilm lacks face detection, yields slower AF acquisition, and has lesser color fidelity, making it less suitable for consistent portrait work.

Landscape Photography

Both cameras have similar maximum resolution, adequate for modest enlargements or web use. Canon’s superior sensor dynamic range offers better detail recovery in shadows and highlights, important in challenging lighting.

Neither camera offers comprehensive weather sealing or stabilized tripod mounts critical for dedicated landscape shooters. The Canon’s longer maximum exposure time permits extended nightscapes better than FujiFilm.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Both cameras’ slow continuous shooting rates and autofocus limitations constrain usefulness in dynamic subjects. Canon’s faster AF and tracking help but never to professional levels.

The FujiFilm’s slower burst and less intelligent AF hinder capturing peak moments. Neither camera pairs ideally with super-fast lenses or teleconverters for wildlife.

Street Photography

Canon’s compactness and superior low light ISO agility provide advantages in discreet shooting conditions and fast-changing environments.

FujiFilm’s larger size and slower AF limit candid capture speed but the EVF aids composition in bright daylight.

Macro Photography

FujiFilm’s closer macro focusing distance (2 cm vs 5 cm) nominally favors extreme close-ups, but Canon’s greater focusing precision and stabilizer yield sharper results in practical use.

Night and Astrophotography

Canon’s longer shutter speeds and improved noise control at high ISO create stronger potential in astrophotography compared to FujiFilm with its limited ISO ceiling and shorter exposure range.

Video Recording

For casual video shooters, Canon’s Full HD 1080p output and refined codec provide considerably better quality and editability than FujiFilm’s limited HD 720p MJPEG capture.

Travel and Convenience

Canon’s light weight, compact size, and respectable battery life make it the obvious choice for travel photography requiring substantial zoom but low carry burden.

Professional Applications

Neither camera supports RAW, limiting professional editing opportunities. Both lack robust build quality and advanced workflow features sought in professional cameras.

Summary of Comparative Strengths and Limitations

Recommendations for Different Photographer Profiles

• Amateur Travel and Street Photographers: Canon SX240 HS is the better fit due to compactness, superior sensor performance, better low light usability, and Full HD video recording.

• Entry-Level Wildlife and Sports Enthusiasts: Neither camera fully satisfies the needs for fast AF and burst shooting, but Canon’s slightly faster continuous shooting and AF tracking give it a marginal edge.

• Macro and Close-Up Shooters: If extreme close focusing is prioritized and size is less of a concern, FujiFilm’s 2 cm macro range is attractive, but expect compromises in AF precision.

• Budget-Conscious Beginners: FujiFilm offers a bridge-style DSLR look and basic telephoto zoom for a lower price but with concessions in image quality and video.

• Casual Video Shooters: Canon’s advanced video specification outperforms FujiFilm by a significant margin, suitable for capturing family or travel moments.

Final Verdict

Based on technical analysis and operational experience across key photographic disciplines, the Canon PowerShot SX240 HS emerges as the more versatile and capable camera overall, especially for users valuing image quality, autofocus reliability, and video performance within a compact form.

The FujiFilm FinePix S2500HD fills a niche for those desiring a DSLR-like handling experience and closer macro shot potential on a tight budget, but compromises in sensor technology, AF sophistication, and video limit its appeal for demanding photographic applications.

Photographers should weigh their priorities in image quality, shooting style, and portability against these objective performance parameters to make an informed choice.

This comparison reflects thorough hands-on testing, sensor technical metrics, and real-world use cases, aiming to guide serious buyers in matching equipment capabilities with photographic ambitions.