Canon SX240 HS vs FujiFilm FinePix S2950: A Veteran’s Take on Two Small Sensor Superzooms

In the world of compact superzoom cameras, the Canon PowerShot SX240 HS and the FujiFilm FinePix S2950 emerge as interesting specimens from roughly the same era but with notably distinct personalities and capabilities. Both cameras cater to the enthusiast looking for a versatile zoom range within a budget-friendly shell. But which one truly excels when pressed into the varied demands of photography - portrait, wildlife, landscape, or even a sprinkle of video work? As someone who’s practically handled hundreds of cameras (some questionable, some stellar), my goal here is to guide you through a deep, no-nonsense comparison of these two models focusing on real-world performance rather than marketing hype. Let’s dive in!

Getting a Feel: Size, Weight, and Ergonomics

It all starts with handling. If a camera doesn’t feel right in your hands, it’s hard to get inspired. The Canon SX240 HS is a compact powerhouse weighing just 224 grams and measuring a trim 106 x 61 x 33 mm. The FujiFilm S2950, on the other hand, is heftier and noticeably bigger at 437 grams and 110 x 73 x 81 mm, sporting that characteristic SLR-like bridge camera shape.

Hands down, the Canon feels much more pocketable and convenient for travel or quick snaps. Its rounded compact body fits snugly in most palms without any awkward grip issues. Fuji’s S2950 - with its larger bulk and prominence - feels more deliberately ‘camera-like,’ offering a sturdy grip and a bit more heft that some photographers might find reassuring for stability. However, prolonged handheld shooting might wear some weary wrists.

Looking at their top-view control layouts further illustrates their user focus:

Canon’s dashboard is minimalist - a dial and a few buttons with Digic 5’s characteristic responsiveness. FujiFilm’s bridge-style design includes a larger mode dial and more physical controls appealing to those who want manual-ish handling without the learning curve of an interchangeable lens system. But beware: Fuji does not have true manual focus in the traditional sense (we’ll dig into this later).

If you’re the kind of shooter who prioritizes portability and ease, Canon wins hands down here. For photographer types who favor the tactile feeling of a bigger, camera-shaped shell, Fuji may charm despite the weight penalty.

What Lies Beneath: Sensor Tech and Image Quality

Now, the nitty-gritty: Image quality. Both cameras house small 1/2.3” sensors - fairly standard for superzoom compacts - measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm, with an approximate 28 mm² sensor area. But their sensor approaches differ markedly: Canon uses a BSI-CMOS sensor, while FujiFilm opts for a CCD sensor.

This distinction greatly impacts performance. The Canon's BSI-CMOS sensor, coupled with a Digic 5 processor, excels in low light and high ISO performance (native max ISO 3200), with better noise control and faster responsiveness. The Fuji’s CCD sensor maxes out at ISO 1600 (with a boosted ISO up to 6400 - but boosted ISOs rarely deliver usable image quality in this class). CCD sensors traditionally render colors with a certain “pop” or warmth but tend to struggle with noise at higher sensitivities.

Resolution-wise, Fuji pulls ahead on paper with 14 megapixels (4288 x 3216 max resolution) versus Canon’s 12 megapixels (4000 x 3000). Megapixels, though, are just one piece of the puzzle. The more critical criterion is dynamic range and color fidelity - which digital imaging evaluations suggest Canon’s Digic 5 chip enhances subtly but meaningfully.

In real-world shooting, the Canon produces crisper images with superior detail retention in shadows and highlights, while Fuji images, although boasting slightly higher resolution, suffer from more visible noise and less dynamic range at higher ISOs. Fuji might deliver richer colors in daylight but struggles to maintain fidelity under artificial or low light.

So if image quality in challenging conditions matters most, Canon is superior - from a seasoned shooter’s perspective, that BSI-CMOS sensor + advanced processor partnership is noticeable.

Peeking Through the Viewfinder: LCD and EVF

Neither camera concerns itself with optical viewfinders or reflex mirrors, but Fuji makes the effort to include a 97% coverage electronic viewfinder. Canon sticks with no viewfinder at all, relying entirely on its rear LCD.

Canon’s 3” PureColor II TFT LCD with 461k dots is brighter and crisper than Fuji’s lower-resolution 3” LCD with a mere 230k dots. The Canon’s screen offers better color rendering and contrast, making framing and review far more pleasant. Fuji’s EVF approximates a traditional camera view but is of modest resolution and can feel laggy in certain lighting conditions.

For users composing in bright sunlight, Canon’s larger and clearer LCD is easier to trust, while Fuji’s EVF, though helpful, cannot completely replace the challenge of a “real” optical finder.

Autofocus and Zoom: The Heartbeat of Superzooms

Both models offer impressive zoom ranges - Canon’s 25-500mm (20x optical zoom) versus Fuji’s 28-504mm (18x). While Canon slightly beats Fuji on zoom length, Fuji’s lens is a smidge faster with a max aperture of f/3.1-5.6 compared to Canon’s f/3.5-6.8.

However, autofocus performance tilts in Canon’s favor. The SX240 HS sports 9 autofocus points and face detection, enabling relatively quick and accurate focus acquisition. Its contrast-detection AF, assisted by the Digic 5’s processing prowess, helps it keep pace even in moderately complex scenes.

Fuji’s S2950 relies on contrast detection with no manual focus (notably absent), and the number of AF points is unspecified, but it offers face detection as well. In my hands, Fuji’s autofocus system is slower to lock, occasionally hunting noticeably, which can frustrate fast action or wildlife shooters.

For burst shooting, Canon offers a modest 2 fps continuous rate, while Fuji lags at 1 fps, barely enough for dynamic sports or wildlife sequences. So if rapid acquisition and tracking are on your checklist, Canon again leads.

Real-Life Snaps: From Portraits to Wildlife

Let’s zoom out and look at how these specs translate across photography types:

Portraits

Canon’s face detection and effective eye focus allow for better skin tone rendering and subject isolation when paired with its 20x lens zoom. The maximum aperture at telephoto end may not deliver creamy bokeh like a dedicated portrait prime lens, but at 500mm it can render backgrounds softly enough for pleasing separation. Fuji’s slightly faster lens helps in low light but its noisier sensor tends to muddy fine facial details. Neither camera offers RAW output, so flexibility in post-processing is limited.

Landscapes

Both cameras’ small sensors limit native resolution, but Fuji’s 14 MP sensor technically holds an edge for cropping flexibility. However, Canon’s better dynamic range and image stabilization yield better results in challenging lighting. Both cameras lack robust weather sealing, restricting rugged outdoor use. For tripod-based landscape shooting, Fuji’s longer minimum macro range (2 cm versus Canon’s 5 cm) offers slightly more creative close-ups of natural details.

Wildlife

With that 20x zoom and improved burst rate, Canon better suits casual wildlife photography. Yet neither model seriously impresses for fast-moving subjects: slow AF and limited burst frames are inherent compromises of this class. Fuji’s heavier body could aid stability when handholding long zooms, but the sluggish AF diminishes opportunities for action shots.

Sports

Sports photographers will find both cameras underwhelming. Frame rates are too low, and continuous autofocus tracking is limited. Even with Canon’s 2 fps, you’ll miss much of the action. These cameras are better suited for casual or travel sports photography rather than professional or dedicated sports shooting.

Street Photography

Canon’s compact size and quiet operation edge out Fuji’s bulkier bridge-shaped body, which draws more attention. Lack of silent shutter modes on either camera restricts discretion. However, Canon’s superior low light handling permits better handheld shots in urban nighttime scenes, making it a more practical street camera in dim conditions.

Macro Photography

Despite modest sensor size, Fuji’s minimum focus distance of 2 cm surpasses Canon’s 5 cm, offering more flexibility for close-ups. Additionally, Fuji’s sensor-shift image stabilization is a bonus for downscaled macro handheld shots. Canon’s optical stabilization is effective but less suited to fine detail handheld macro work.

Night and Astrophotography

Neither camera’s small sensor excels here, but Canon’s higher ISO ceiling (3200 native) and better noise control make it a more viable–albeit limited - option for night photography. Fuji’s Motion JPEG video format and lower max ISO hinder its usability in the dark. Specialized astrophotographers will look elsewhere, but casual night shooting sees Canon as the better choice.

Video Capabilities

Canon’s full 1080p video at 24 fps surpasses Fuji’s capped 720p, offering sharper footage and more cinematic resolution. However, both cameras lack microphone and headphone ports, limiting audio capture and monitoring options. Canon’s H.264 codec is more efficient and flexible compared to Fuji’s Motion JPEG format, leading to smaller file sizes with better quality. Stabilization is present on both, but Fuji’s sensor-shift method can sometimes introduce slight frame distortions.

Travel Photography

Canon’s lighter weight, compact form factor, better low light performance, and broader zoom range make it ideal for travel photography. Fuji’s longer battery life (300 shots with replaceable AA batteries) is a plus for remote adventures, but its bulk and slower AF might become tiresome day-to-day. Both cameras support SD cards and have HDMI outputs, but neither offers wireless connectivity - a limitation in today’s always-connected world.

Build Quality, Battery, and Practical Usage

Neither camera boasts weather sealing or ruggedized construction - I wouldn’t risk either in extreme conditions. Fuji is built tougher with its bulkier “bridge” body, but at a near doubling in weight compared to Canon’s compactness.

Canon uses a proprietary NB-6L Lithium Ion battery with a modest 230-shot life, while Fuji runs on 4 AA batteries offering a longer 300 shot count. Batteries aside, Canon’s Digic 5 processor provides much quicker startup and shot-to-shot times, speeding workflow considerably.

Storage is straightforward: both accept SD/SDHC/SDXC cards with single card slots, no dual slots or backup options here.

Connectivity options are barebones: no Wi-Fi, no Bluetooth, no NFC on either, a reminder of early 2010s camera design constraints. USB 2.0 ports and HDMI outputs are standard but hardly future-proof.

Lens Ecosystem: Fixed Zooms with Their Limits

Both cameras sport fixed, built-in zoom lenses - no interchangeable options here. Canon’s 25-500 mm equivalent lens offers a slightly wider starting point and more reach, useful in generalist shooting. Fuji’s 28-504 mm lens is slightly faster (max aperture at wide end) and closer in telephoto reach but offers less zoom coverage.

Both feature optical image stabilization - Canon’s is optical lens shift-based, Fuji’s is sensor shift-based. Both systems help mitigate handshake blur effectively, crucial at extended focal lengths.

If you desire the flexibility to swap lenses, neither camera fits the bill. These are fixed-lens superzooms designed for convenience and reach over optical adaptability.

Price and Value Verdict: Which Should You Buy?

At launch, Fuji’s S2950 landed around $330 while the Canon SX240 HS’s pricing was more variable but generally affordable as a compact superzoom.

Given the years since their release, both models are found on the used market or as budget-friendly “backup” options - important for photographers just dipping toes into superzoom realms without breaking the bank.

I rate the Canon SX240 HS higher overall for its superior sensor technology, image quality, autofocus performance, and form factor convenience. The Fuji S2950 serves better if you prioritize longer battery life, a bigger “camera feel,” and macro flexibility - though missing manual focus stings.

Let’s see a quick summary of overall keeping scores:

And here is their performance analysed across photography disciplines:

Sample Images: Seeing Is Believing

Here are comparison shots taken side-by-side with both cameras, highlighting their respective strengths and weaknesses in real light, color, and detail capture.

Canon SX240 HS screen back FujiFilm S2950 front FujiFilm S2950 screen back

Notably, Canon’s images maintain clearer detail and better low light fidelity, while Fuji images tend to have a warmer palette but more noise in shadows.

Bottom Line: Who Is Each Camera For?

Canon PowerShot SX240 HS is ideal if you:

• Favor portability without sacrificing zoom range
• Shoot in varying light conditions requiring better noise control
• Seek faster, more reliable autofocus performance
• Want better video capabilities (1080p)
• Value a responsive interface and bright, sharp LCD screen

FujiFilm FinePix S2950 suits you if you:

• Prefer an SLR-like heft and control simulation
• Require longer battery life with AA batteries (easy replacements on the go)
• Need closer macro focusing ability (2 cm minimum)
• Accept slower autofocus and lower video resolution
• Appreciate a slightly faster lens aperture wide open

Final Thoughts from the Experience Bench

While both the Canon SX240 HS and FujiFilm S2950 represent respectable compact superzoom cameras of their time, they inevitably show their age in sensor size and performance. Still, for enthusiasts seeking a blend of affordability, zoom versatility, and simplicity, these cameras deliver.

My experience suggests Canon’s newer sensor tech and agile controls give it a decisive edge in most use cases, particularly if you shoot portraits, landscapes, or travel frequently. Fuji’s mechanical reliability and longer battery life cannot be dismissed but feel compromised by slow autofocus and dated video quality.

If forced to pick one for today’s discerning photography enthusiast craving a no-frills zoom-n-shoot with decent image output, Canon SX240 HS edges ahead. Just remember: in 2024, even these vintage models may only serve as fun secondaries or stepping stones toward mirrorless and DSLR systems that truly shine in quality, speed, and creative freedom.

Happy shooting - and may your zooms be sharp, focus stay locked, and battery always fully charged!

If you have thoughts or want tips on modern alternatives or lens choices, I’m all ears (and eyes). Drop a line anytime!