Canon PowerShot SX500 IS vs Fujifilm FinePix S4800: A Deep Dive into Small Sensor Superzooms for Enthusiasts

Choosing the right compact superzoom camera can be a challenge - especially when two models, like the Canon PowerShot SX500 IS and the Fujifilm FinePix S4800, both offer enticing 30x zooms, similar sensor resolutions, and comparable feature sets. As someone who has spent over 15 years extensively testing cameras across genres, I’m here to unpack the real-world differences you won’t always find in spec sheets. Whether you’re a casual shooter, travel buff, or an enthusiast looking for versatility without the heft of a DSLR, understanding how these two stack up in everyday use will save you time, money, and a fair bit of frustration.

Let’s explore how Canon’s SX500 IS and Fujifilm’s S4800 perform head-to-head across photography disciplines, technical capabilities, ergonomics, and overall value - drawing from my hands-on experience and methodical testing approach.

First Impressions: Size, Handling, and Ergonomics

Right out of the gate, the Canon SX500 IS and Fujifilm S4800 couldn’t be more different in physical design, despite sharing the same 30x zoom magic.

The SX500 IS is compact, cube-shaped, and light - tipping the scales at a svelte 341 grams. This makes it pocketable enough for day trips where you want long reach without the bulk. Its dimensions (104x70x80 mm) reflect this nimbleness - smaller and less overtly “camera-like.”

By contrast, the Fujifilm S4800 channels a bridge camera vibe with an SLR-like body, measuring a substantial 122x93x100 mm and weighing 518 grams - noticeably heftier. You’ll feel this heft when carrying it all day, but it provides robust grip and a serious tactile feel. For those who appreciate a camera you can hold on to confidently, this is a plus.

The SX500’s simpler shape and smaller grip area can feel less stable in hand during extended shooting, especially with heavy zooming. The S4800’s pronounced grip and bigger chunky body lend greater control, especially when soaring into telephoto territory.

Both cameras use traditional LCDs - more on the screens later - but ergonomically, if you prefer something pocket-friendly for casual use, Canon’s lightweight design shines. If you want a “camera experience” with a sturdy feel, Fuji’s bridge form factor delivers that solid presence.

Controls and User Interface: A Tale of Two Approaches

Looking at the top deck and physical controls, the two cameras again diverge in philosophy.

The Canon SX500 IS opts for minimalism - a mode dial centered on essentials like Program, Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority, and Manual exposure modes (impressively available in this compact). There’s an intuitive zoom rocker around the shutter release, plus straightforward exposure compensation and flash buttons. The buttons themselves are small but sufficiently spaced, albeit not backlit (a shame for low-light fiddling). The SX500’s simplicity will appeal if you want quick access without fuss.

Fujifilm’s S4800 leans into its bridge camera heritage with a more extensive button array and dedicated dials. The controls feel more “camera-like” and allow for quicker tweaking on the fly, valuable during challenging shooting conditions. I appreciate the dedicated ISO and white balance shortcut buttons here, a nod to creative control enthusiasts.

Neither has touchscreen functionality or illuminated buttons, but Fujifilm includes an HDMI port for output, something missing on Canon - an important consideration if you plan to review or share images on a larger screen regularly.

So, if tactile, granular control is your thing, Fuji’s layout wins. If simplicity and ease matter more, Canon has the edge.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Core Comparison

Under the hood, both cameras employ a 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor - the classic small sensor used across superzoom compacts. Both deliver 16-megapixel resolution (4608x3456 max), which on paper sounds generous, but small sensor sizes limit dynamic range and noise performance.

Canon’s SX500 IS caps ISO at 1600 native, while Fujifilm’s S4800 nudges native down to ISO 64 minimum (helpful for bright environments or longer exposures) and pushes boosted ISO as high as 6400 (though expect heavy noise at these extremes).

In real-world shooting, I found both to produce similar sharpness and detail in well-lit situations at base ISO. The anti-aliasing filters on both cameras smooth fine detail somewhat - this is typical to prevent moiré, but not ideal if you crave maximum resolution. Color reproduction slightly favors Fuji with slightly punchier hues, though Canon’s color balance is more neutral overall.

Noise performance at ISO 800 and above shows its limitations. The Fujifilm manages a touch cleaner noise grain on boosted ISOs - likely helped by its sensor-level stabilization - but it comes at the cost of brightness and detail preservation. Canon’s images tend to get blotchy beyond ISO 800, so for better low light, Fuji has a slight technical advantage.

Neither supports RAW shooting, so post-processing latitude is limited - an important consideration for serious enthusiasts who want to squeeze maximum quality.

Display and Live View: What You See Is What You Get

Both cameras feature 3-inch LCD screens, but again differ in resolution and quality.

Canon’s 461k-dot TFT LCD offers brighter, crisper viewing, even in harsh daylight. It’s fixed, non-touch, but with a better pixel density than Fuji’s screen. This makes framing and reviewing images on location a more pleasant experience on the SX500 IS.

Fujifilm’s S4800 has a 230k-dot screen that’s visible but less sharp, making fine detail review harder without zooming in. This is a missed opportunity on Fuji’s part for quality control in the field.

Neither camera offers an electronic viewfinder, so composing in bright sunlight can be slightly tricky for both, but Canon’s superior screen helps counter this disadvantage.

Live view autofocus is supported on both, but Canon’s live view AF is a bit slower to lock compared to Fuji’s faster continuous contrast-detection autofocus.

Canon SX500 IS front Canon SX500 IS screen back Fujifilm S4800 front Fujifilm S4800 screen back

Real-World Image Samples: Zoom, Macro, and Color Renditions

To put these cameras through their paces, I tested them across typical shooting conditions:

• Portraits: Both cameras deliver reasonable skin tone renditions, though Canon’s softer aperture range at the long end (f/5.8 max) limits background blur. Fuji’s slightly faster max aperture (F3.1 wide end) offers better potential for separating subjects from backgrounds. Eye detection autofocus exists on both but is rudimentary; expect to do manual focus tweaks.

• Macro: Canon's ability to focus as close as 1 cm is impressive for capturing fine details, making it slightly better for handheld macro snaps. Fuji’s closest focusing distance is 2 cm, still good but less intimate. Neither camera features focus stacking or bracketing, so sharpness control is manual.

• Landscape: Both cameras have similar resolution, but Fuji edges out on dynamic range due to sensor characteristics and ISO flexibility. Its optical image stabilization combined with sensor-shift stabilization helps in low-light scenery shots without tripod use. Canon’s optical stabilization is decent but lacks sensor stabilization.

• Wildlife and Sports: Unfortunately, both cameras max out around 1 fps continuous shooting - sluggish by modern standards. Autofocus tracking is basic and can hunt during fast action shots. The difference is marginal; neither excels for fast-moving subjects, but Fuji’s more responsive AF may catch a few more keepers.

• Street and Travel: Canon’s compact size and light weight shine for street shooters valuing discretion. Fuji’s size is a bit cumbersome, but for travel photography requiring a range of focal lengths and controls, its ergonomics compensate. Battery life also weighs in here: Canon lists 195 shots per charge (NB-6L battery), while Fuji uses 4 AA batteries - less predictable but often easier to swap on the go.

Performance Overview: Speed, Battery, and Responsiveness

Performance-wise, both cameras share sluggish continuous shooting speeds (1 frame per second), which limits action photography.

Autofocus is contrast-detection based - predictable but slow compared to phase-detection systems found in DSLRs or mirrorless cameras. Canon’s single AF point vs. Fujifilm’s unspecified number of points doesn’t translate into a meaningful difference in practice.

Battery life favors Canon’s proprietary battery pack - 195 shots per charge is reasonable for a compact, while Fujifilm’s reliance on AAs is advantageous in a pinch but less durable for extended outings without spares.

Lens speed at wide angles slightly favors Fuji (F3.1 vs. Canon’s F3.4), while at the telephoto end, they are nearly identical (F5.8 vs. F5.9).

How They Shine Across Photography Genres

Let’s break down each model tailored to your photographic interests:

• Portrait Photography: Fujifilm’s wider aperture and slightly punchier colors make it marginally better for casual portraits. That said, neither delivers the creamy bokeh or sophisticated eye tracking of dedicated portrait cameras.

• Landscape: For wide dynamic range and detailed landscapes, Fuji again has the upper hand, supported by sensor shake reduction and better ISO flexibility.

• Wildlife: Both fall short due to slow continuous shooting and basic AF. However, Fuji’s ergonomics and slightly faster focus give it a slim edge.

• Sports: Neither camera is ideal here. If capturing high-speed action is frequent, you’d be better served by a dedicated DSLR or mirrorless body.

• Street Photography: Canon’s compact form and bright screen orientation favor candid urban shooting. The discreetness and portability make it a recommended pick.

• Macro: Canon’s close focusing range wins mild preference for intimate close-ups on flowers or small objects.

• Night/Astro: Neither is designed for astrophotography - small sensor noise and limited ISO range hamper results. Fuji’s extended ISO 6400 might help in a pinch but expect heavy noise.

• Video: Both limit recording to 720p HD, with Canon’s max frame-rate at 25 fps and Fuji at 30 fps. Neither has microphone inputs or advanced stabilization for serious video work.

• Travel: If weight and size matter most, Canon is the pragmatic choice. But for users who prioritize control and optical performance, Fuji’s handling justifies the bulk.

• Professional Use: Neither supports RAW nor high-end workflows, so they’re best as backup or casual cameras rather than professional tools.

Build Quality and Durability: Surviving the Field

Neither camera offers any weather sealing or rugged construction. Both should be treated as well-maintained compacts - avoid heavy moisture or dusty environments without protection.

The plastic bodies feel appropriate for their price ranges, with Fujifilm’s larger form having a more robust feel due to increased heft. Buttons are reliable but can feel a little tight on Canon’s smaller shell.

Connectivity and Storage: Sharing Made Simple?

Interesting to note, Canon features Eye-Fi wireless support (for compatible cards) granting easier image transfer to smartphones or computers, an advantage for on-the-go sharing given the camera’s 2012 debut date.

Fujifilm lacks wireless features but has an HDMI port for connecting to TVs or monitors - useful for slide shows or reviewing on a large screen out of the box.

Both cameras use SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, a standard choice with one storage slot each.

Price-to-Performance: Which Delivers the Better Bang?

As of the release period, the Canon SX500 IS retailed around $299, and the Fujifilm S4800 at roughly $229 - making Fuji the more budget-friendly choice.

Given that, Fuji offers better value for those prioritizing ergonomics, extended ISO range, and slightly better video options (30 fps vs. 25 fps). However, Canon’s more compact size and superior screen quality justify the price gap for portability-focused buyers.

Final Thoughts: Who Should Buy Which?

Having tested and used both extensively, here’s my distilled advice:

• Choose the Canon PowerShot SX500 IS if you want a truly compact, lightweight superzoom that’s easy to throw in a bag or jacket pocket. It excels in street photography and casual travel scenarios where discreetness counts. Its sharper screen and straightforward controls are plus points for quick shooting.

• Opt for the Fujifilm FinePix S4800 if you prefer a more substantial camera body with better handling, a slightly faster lens wide open, broader ISO range, and HDMI connectivity. This camera suits users looking for improved control, a bridge camera “feel,” and whom bulk doesn’t bother during day-long shooting sessions.

Neither is perfect for advanced enthusiasts demanding RAW support or rapid autofocus, but both deliver respectable zoom versatility in a budget-friendly package. Consider your priority - portability vs. handling - alongside budget, and you’ll find your match.

For reference, here again is a side-by-side look at key specifications and performance scores:

And don’t forget the physical form comparison that often seals the deal:

Dear Canon, a touch of touchscreen and slightly better low-light performance would make the SX series irresistible. Fuji, some screen upgrading and RAW support would elevate the S4800’s serious potential. Until then, enjoy these trusty superzooms and shoot well!

If you’d like to see my detailed video review with real-field tests demonstrating autofocus speed, image quality comparison, and zoom capabilities, feel free to reach out.

Happy shooting, and may your next camera be the perfect fit for your photographic adventures.