Canon SX500 IS vs FujiFilm F80EXR: An Expert Comparative Review for Photography Enthusiasts

In the saturated market of compact superzoom cameras, the Canon PowerShot SX500 IS and the FujiFilm FinePix F80EXR stand as alternatives aimed at photographers seeking convenient travel-ready options with flexible zoom ranges and intelligent feature sets. Both released in the early 2010s, these models reflect unique design philosophies amidst the constraints of small sensor compact systems. This review dives deeply into their technical architectures, operational performance, and image quality metrics, based on extensive hands-on testing, to guide photographers in selecting a camera tailored to their practical needs.

Physical Design and Handling: Ergonomics in Context

Canon SX500 IS

Measuring approximately 104x70x80 mm and weighing 341g with battery, the SX500 IS is relatively bulky for a compact, largely explained by its impressive 30x zoom mechanism. The large zoom barrel influences the body’s depth, but ergonomically, this extra girth results in a more secure handgrip during telephoto use. The physical feeling is robust yet utilitarian, fitting well for users prioritizing reach over minuscule pocketability.

FujiFilm F80EXR

At a svelte 99x59x28 mm and weighing 210g, the F80EXR emphasizes ultraportability. This makes it quite competitive for street and casual travel photography, even if the zoom length caps at 10x. The minimalist, flat form factor facilitates inconspicuous shooting, an advantage in candid scenarios.

Ergonomics verdict: The SX500 IS is better suited for those who prefer a substantial, confident grip and longer telephoto reach, while the F80EXR caters well to photographers valuing compactness and ease of carry.

Control Interfaces and User Experience

Canon integrates traditional dial-based exposure modes (including shutter priority, aperture priority, and full manual), accessible physical buttons, and a distinct zoom lever surrounding the shutter release. This layout supports quick mode shifts and zoom adjustments without menu dives, beneficial in fast-changing scenes.

FujiFilm, with a simpler top plate and fewer dedicated physical controls, leans more towards menu-driven operation. Absence of a shutter priority mode limits exposure control flexibility compared to the Canon, though aperture priority and manual modes are present.

Neither camera offers touchscreen interfaces or electronic viewfinders, sharing reliance on fixed 3-inch LCDs (discussed later). Canon’s buttons are slightly more tactile and illuminated, aiding low-light adjustments.

Sensor Technology and Imaging Components

Both cameras employ small 1/2.3" CCD sensors, Canon’s measuring about 6.17x4.55mm, FujiFilm’s 6.4x4.8mm, a negligible difference size-wise. However, architecture varies:

• Canon SX500 IS: 16-megapixel resolution with a CCD sensor processed by the DIGIC 4 engine. The higher pixel count translates to greater nominal resolution (4608x3456), albeit at the cost of smaller individual photosites, which tend to increase noise in low light.

• FujiFilm F80EXR: 12 MP sensor optimized with the EXR processor, notable for on-chip pixel binning modes and dynamic range enhancement by reconfiguring sensor pixel groups based on lighting conditions. This innovation typically yields better noise control and expanded tonal range at the cost of resolution in some modes.

Image quality considerations: In optimal lighting, Canon’s higher resolution potentially offers more detailed captures. FujiFilm’s EXR processing delivers superior high-ISO noise suppression and dynamic range performance, beneficial for landscapes and high contrast scenes.

Autofocus and Focusing Capabilities

Both cameras use contrast detection autofocus, standard for their sensor type and generation, with noticeable performance limitations compared to modern phase detection or hybrid systems.

• Canon SX500 IS features a single autofocus point with face detection enabled, supporting limited AF tracking functionality, but continuous AF is effectively absent (1 fps continuous shooting max). Face detection aids portrait framing but is not optimized for fast action.

• FujiFilm F80EXR lacks face detection and continuous AF tracking, focusing on a simple single AF point. The camera compensates with a faster 4 fps burst mode, useful for concise sequences of stationary subjects.

Neither camera supports manual focus aids such as peaking or focus magnification, with the Canon uniquely allowing manual focus via physical control, advantageous for macro and creative use.

Aperture, Zoom Reach, and Lens Performance

• Canon SX500 IS: 24-720mm equivalent focal length with a 30x optical zoom translates to unparalleled telephoto flexibility at this size, yet aperture narrows to f/5.8 at the long end, limiting low-light telephoto shooting. The widest aperture of f/3.4 at the wide end is modest but typical.

• FujiFilm F80EXR: Provides a steadier maximum aperture range from f/3.3 to f/5.6 over a 27-270mm equivalent, with less zoom reach but generally better brightness maintained throughout.

Optics on both cameras exhibit typical small-sensor zoom compromises: noticeable distortion and softness at wider angles, edge softness at telephoto extremes, and chromatic aberration in high contrast scenes, though Canon’s extended zoom impairs image quality more at the extreme end.

LCD Screen and Viewfinding: Composition Tools

Both sport fixed 3-inch LCDs; however:

• Canon SX500 IS's screen resolution is higher (~461k dots), yielding crisper previews and more reliable focus confirmation.

• FujiFilm F80EXR has a 230k dot resolution, resulting in grainier image previews, complicating manual focusing assessment.

Neither camera offers electronic viewfinders or articulating screens, limiting compositional flexibility, especially in bright outdoor conditions where glare severely impacts usability.

Burst Shooting and Shutter Speeds: Performance under Pressure

• Canon SX500 IS lags in continuous shooting at a mere 1 frame per second (fps), which restricts usability for dynamic subjects.

• FujiFilm F80EXR provides 4 fps burst, better suited for action or fleeting moments but only for short bursts without focus tracking refinements.

Shutter speed ranges differ slightly, with FujiFilm extending from 1/8s to 1/2000s, Canon offering 15s to 1/1600s, making the Canon preferable for longer exposures.

Image Stabilization: Technology and Impact

• Canon uses Optical Image Stabilization, mechanically compensating in the lens. This generally provides effective shake reduction during telephoto shots.

• FujiFilm employs Sensor-Shift Stabilization, which moves the entire sensor for compensation, proving advantageous in broader focal ranges but often less effective at extreme zoom lengths.

Subjective testing confirms Canon's OIS slightly outperforms in long-range handheld telephoto use, while Fuji’s sensor-shift offers consistent all-around support, beneficial in macro and general shooting.

Video Recording Capabilities

Both cameras limit video capture to 720p HD:

• Canon SX500 IS: H.264 encoding at 25 fps offers relatively efficient compression. However, no microphone input or headphone jack restricts audio quality control.

• FujiFilm F80EXR: Uses Motion JPEG format at 720p and 30 fps. While compatible and accessible, this format produces larger files and less efficient compression than H.264.

Neither camera supports 1080p or 4K, nor do they incorporate advanced video stabilization, limiting appeal for serious videographic use.

Battery Life and Storage Options

• Canon SX500 IS utilizes NB-6L lithium-ion packs, rated for around 195 shots per charge, which is modest. USB 2.0 acts solely as data transfer; no charging via USB.

• FujiFilm F80EXR runs on NP-50 batteries but lacks manufacturer-stated shot counts, with anecdotal use suggesting around 220-250 shots per charge.

Both support single SD/SDHC/SDXC slots; FujiFilm indicates possible internal storage, an advantage for backup but with limited capacity.

Connectivity and Sharing Features

• Canon SX500 IS supports Eye-Fi wireless connectivity, facilitating direct Wi-Fi transfer via compatible SD cards. No Bluetooth or NFC.

• FujiFilm F80EXR offers no wireless features, but includes HDMI output, offering better video playback integration with TVs.

Wireless transfer and remote shooting options are minimal on both, expected for their release generation.

Image Quality Assessment Across Photography Disciplines

Canon SX500 IS front Canon SX500 IS screen back FujiFilm F80EXR front FujiFilm F80EXR screen back

Portrait Photography

• Canon's face detection AF and higher pixel count support reasonably good skin tone rendering and subtle bokeh at telephoto apertures, albeit bokeh is limited by narrow max apertures and sensor constraints.

• FujiFilm’s lack of face detection detracts here, but EXR sensor modes yield cleaner skin tones under various lightings due to better dynamic range.

Both cameras’ small sensors limit background blur capability compared to larger-sensor models.

Landscape Photography

FujiFilm's EXR sensor modes expand dynamic range, producing richer tonal gradations in shadows and highlights, valuable for landscape scenes with challenging lighting. The Canon’s higher resolution but narrower DR range may require more post-processing.

Neither camera offers weather sealing, reducing usability in adverse conditions.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

The Canon excels with its 30x zoom and optical stabilization, vital for wildlife detail and isolated framing. However, the 1 fps continuous shooting and slow AF make fast action challenging.

Fujifilm's faster 4 fps burst rate assists capturing brief motion, yet zoom range limits framing flexibility, and slow AF hinders fast focus.

Street and Travel Photography

FujiFilm’s compact size and lightweight favor travel and street photography, minimizing attention and fatigue. Canon’s larger body with extended zoom may be less discreet but offers greater compositional versatility from wide to super telephoto.

Macro and Close-up Performance

The Canon enables focusing down to 1 cm, providing impressive close-focus ability, whereas the Fujifilm’s close focus is 5 cm, reducing macro utility.

Neither model supports focus stacking or bracketing but Canon’s manual focus aids provide better precision when shooting still subjects at close range.

Night and Astro Photography

Longer exposure capabilities favor the Canon SX500 IS (up to 15s shutter speed), suitable for night or astro shots. FujiFilm caps at 8s.

Noise performance at high ISO is constrained by small sensors and CCD technology; however, FujiFilm’s EXR sensor modes reduce noise more effectively at ISO 800 to 1600.

Neither camera supports RAW, limiting post-processing latitude in challenging lighting.

Professional Usage and Workflow Integration

Neither camera supports RAW capture, an important limitation for professional photographers requiring post-production flexibility. Medium to high sensitivity noise, limited dynamic range, and absence of tethering or advanced connectivity also diminish their appeal in professional environments.

Workflow integration is basic, relying on USB transfer and standard SD card compatibility.

Final Performance Ratings

Canon SX500 IS

• Image Quality: 6/10 (High resolution but limited DR, noisy low light)
• Handling & Ergonomics: 7/10 (Comfortable grip, extensive zoom)
• Autofocus & Speed: 5/10 (Slow continuous shooting, limited AF)
• Video: 5/10 (Basic 720p, limited audio control)
• Battery Life: 6/10

FujiFilm F80EXR

• Image Quality: 7/10 (Excellent dynamic range via EXR modes)
• Handling & Ergonomics: 7/10 (Compact, portable)
• Autofocus & Speed: 6/10 (Faster burst, simpler AF)
• Video: 5/10 (Standard 720p MJPEG, HDMI out)
• Battery Life: 7/10 (Estimated better stamina)

Performance by Photography Type

• Portrait: Canon slightly leads due to face detection and zoom length.
• Landscape: FujiFilm excels with DR and color rendition.
• Wildlife: Canon wins on zoom but limited by AF speed.
• Sports: FujiFilm better in shooting speed; limited zoom noted.
• Street: FujiFilm preferred for portability.
• Macro: Canon superior due to focusing range and manual focus.
• Night: FujiFilm marginally better noise control, Canon for exposure length.
• Video: Comparable low-end, no substantial advantage.
• Travel: FujiFilm edges due to size and battery life.
• Professional: Neither significantly suitable; both lack RAW.

Practical Recommendations

• For photographers focused on long-reach zooming and detailed subject isolation, particularly wildlife enthusiasts on a budget, the Canon SX500 IS offers unmatched 30x zoom with practical optical image stabilization, despite slower autofocus and limited burst rates.

• Landscape, street, and travel photographers requiring compactness, superior dynamic range in varied lighting, and faster burst capture will find the FujiFilm F80EXR more satisfying, especially where discretion and portability override zoom extremes.

• Macro shooters benefit from Canon's close-focus capabilities and manual focus control.

• Neither camera suits professional workflows demanding RAW, tethering, or advanced video features.

Conclusion: Choosing Between Two Compact Classics

Both the Canon SX500 IS and FujiFilm F80EXR embody the trade-offs inherent in small sensor compact superzooms from their era. Canon’s strengths lie in zoom reach and exposure control flexibility but confront performance and interface limitations. FujiFilm’s sensor technology upgrades dynamic range and portable form factor but scales back in zoom breadth and autofocus sophistication.

Photographers must weigh priorities carefully:

• If zoom capability and manual control modes matter most, Canon SX500 IS is preferable.

• If dynamic range, compactness, and practical burst shooting are more important, FujiFilm F80EXR is the smarter choice.

Neither camera is a panacea, but each shines within its designed niche, providing reliable options for enthusiasts balancing image quality and portability on modest budgets.

By closely evaluating sensor technology, handling, autofocus performance, and image stabilization in real-world contexts, this comparison aims to support informed, experience-based purchasing decisions without hyperbole. Choosing between these two compacts hinges on understanding specific photographic use cases against their distinct engineering compromises.