Canon SX700 HS vs Fujifilm S9900w: A Hands-On Comparison of Two Small Sensor Superzooms

When searching for a versatile superzoom camera, enthusiasts often gravitate toward models that balance reach, image quality, and handling. Today, I’m diving deep into two compact, small sensor superzooms that have made waves in their communities but occupy distinct niches: the Canon PowerShot SX700 HS, released in early 2014, and the Fujifilm S9900w, announced a year later in 2015. Both target photographers who crave extensive zoom ranges without the bulk of DSLRs or mirrorless systems.

Having personally tested and compared thousands of cameras over 15 years - including many small sensor superzooms - I’m excited to share my real-world experiences, backed by extensive technical insights. I’ll cover everything from sensor performance and autofocus to ergonomics and specific photographic disciplines, helping you find which model truly suits your creative vision and shooting demands.

Seeing Them Side by Side: Size, Shape, and Handling

Size and ergonomics can make or break the superzoom experience. The SX700 HS is a sleek compact, while the Fujifilm S9900w is noticeably chunkier and mirrorless DSLR-esque in style - what we often call a "bridge camera."

The Canon SX700 HS measures a trim 113 x 66 x 35 mm and weighs just 269g. It nestles comfortably in one hand, making it ideal for travel or street shooting scenarios where discreetness matters. The slim profile means it slips easily into pockets or compact bags without becoming a burden.

By contrast, the Fujifilm S9900w is a tankier offering at 123 x 87 x 116 mm and a hefty 670 grams, more than double Canon’s weight. Its DSLR-style grip offers a confident hold and suits users who value robust feel and extended zoom reach. However, the chunkiness makes it less pocketable and more noticeable in urban or travel environments where discretion counts.

Personally, I appreciated the Fujifilm’s substantial grip when venturing into wildlife or sports shooting where stability is key, but the Canon’s compact form factor won my heart on travel days.

Top Controls and Usability: How Fast Can You Shoot?

Controls can shape your creative flow or slow things down while fumbling through menus.

The SX700 HS features a clean, minimal top plate with a dedicated video record button and a mode dial. Buttons are well spaced but small - fine for those with nimble fingers or short nails. While there’s no touchscreen, its responsive physical dials encourage quick shifts between exposure modes, which I found very useful in dynamic light situations, such as street or event shooting.

Meanwhile, the Fujifilm S9900w offers a DSLR-like control layout: a mode dial flanked by a zoom rocker and well-sized buttons. Though also lacking touchscreen, the physicality of the buttons and raised grip deliver excellent feedback. Notably, the S9900w adds an EVF (electronic viewfinder) - a feature the Canon lacks - which can be a game changer in bright light or when precision composition is needed.

For me, the S9900w’s dedicated viewfinder and quicker continuous shooting mode gave it an edge for wildlife and sports, while Canon’s streamlined interface excelled in spontaneous, walk-around photography.

The Sensor Debate: Quality and Capabilities

Both cameras share the common trait of housing a 1/2.3-inch sensor - small by today's standard - but the devil is in the details.

The Canon SX700 HS packs a 16MP Backside-Illuminated CMOS sensor paired with Canon's Digic 6 processor. While the sensor size and resolution mirror the Fujifilm, Canon's renowned DIGIC processing provides reliable noise control and better color science - especially with skin tones in portraiture. ISO tops out at 3200 native, a bit low by modern standards but still usable at base apertures.

On the flip side, the Fujifilm S9900w, also sporting a 16MP 1/2.3" CMOS sensor, boasts a maximum ISO of 12800, putatively giving it an edge in low light and night photography. However, in practice, the jump from ISO 3200 to ISO 12800 on small sensors like these often comes with significant noise and softness, limiting usability.

Color depth and dynamic range are comparable, both featuring an antialiasing filter to minimize moiré but sacrificing the slightest crispness. Both cameras do not support RAW capture, which restricts post-processing flexibility for professionals or enthusiasts wanting maximum control.

In my tests, Canon's processing yielded punchier, more natural colors straight out of the camera, whereas Fujifilm’s colors leaned toward a cooler tone profile, which aficionados of the brand might appreciate.

Screen and Viewfinder: Find Your Perfect Frame

While both cameras house 3-inch fixed LCDs, their approach to framing diverges considerably.

The Canon SX700 HS uses a 922k-dot PureColor II G TFT screen. It's bright and clear, with good contrast and viewing angles for composing or reviewing shots. However, there’s no touchscreen capability, and no EVF, forcing one to rely on the display exclusively.

The Fujifilm S9900w offers a 3-inch LCD but with only 460k-dot resolution - a notable downgrade in sharpness and clarity. However, it includes a 920k-dot electronic viewfinder (EVF) with 97% coverage. For scenic landscapes or high-action wildlife shots, having the EVF was invaluable to me - especially under harsh sunlight where LCDs often wash out or glare.

If you’re mostly shooting outdoors or in bright conditions, Fujifilm’s EVF significantly enhances composition capabilities, outweighing the lower rear screen resolution.

Zoom Range and Lens Performance: Reach That Matters

In the realm of superzooms, the telephoto reach often defines the ease with which you can approach distant subjects - wildlife, sports action, or architectural details.

• Canon SX700 HS: 25–750mm (equivalent), 30x optical zoom, aperture F3.2–F6.9
• Fujifilm S9900w: 24–1200mm (equivalent), 50x optical zoom, aperture F2.9–F6.5

The Fujifilm’s 50x zoom significantly surpasses Canon’s 30x, granting a tremendous 1200mm focal length equivalent. This alone makes it appealing for wildlife or sports photographers on a budget.

The wider maximum aperture on the wide end (f/2.9 vs. f/3.2) gives a bit more flexibility in low light for Fuji. However, at the extreme telephoto range, both cameras effectively sit near f/6.5-6.9, limiting light and shallow depth-of-field effects.

In practice, I found the Fujifilm's longer zoom quite useful for creeping closer to distant animals or capturing details on the sports field. However, noticeable softness and chromatic aberrations crept in at maximum zoom due to the lens design constraints inherent in such superzoom ranges. The Canon, though shorter zoom range, maintained slightly crisper images at telephoto.

For macro work, the Canon’s impressive minimum focus distance of just 1 cm allows close-ups with decent magnification compared to Fujifilm’s 7 cm minimum focus distance. This makes Canon more versatile for detail-oriented shooters or hobbyist macro photography.

Autofocus and Burst Shooting: Chasing the Action

When photographing fast-moving subjects - be it wildlife, sports, or street scenes - autofocus responsiveness and burst shooting matter immensely.

The Canon SX700 HS features 9 autofocus points with contrast-detection AF and face detection. It supports continuous and single AF but lacks sophisticated tracking AF or subject recognition. Burst rate caps at 9 fps which is quite competent for this class.

Fujifilm S9900w ramps up autofocus with contrast-detection only but includes tracking AF and selective AF area modes. Its burst shooting tops out at 10 fps, edging Canon slightly.

In practical terms, tracking moving subjects with the SX700 HS requires steady hands and anticipation, as the AF tends to hunt in complex scenes when moving rapidly. The S9900w’s tracking AF offered more reliability in these scenarios, allowing me to follow birds in flight or athletes sprinting.

Neither camera offers hybrid phase-detection autofocus, which limits performance in very low light or rapid action. However, the inclusion of tracking AF on Fujifilm gave it a real-world edge in sports and wildlife shooting.

Image Stabilization and Low-Light Performance

Both cameras incorporate optical image stabilization (OIS), crucial at long focal lengths to counteract camera shake and enable sharper images handheld.

Canon’s OIS system is well-regarded for its effectiveness, notably at 750mm. The stabilization allowed handholding telephoto shots down to shutter speeds around 1/60s normally - and even slower in some cases.

Fujifilm also offers optical stabilization but pairing this with its longer zoom means the system works overtime. On occasion, I noticed slight image softness at maximum zoom due to motion blur or lens creep, which indicates challenges at the extreme telephoto reach.

In low-light shooting, both cameras' small sensors introduce noise beyond ISO 1600, and image quality can degrade noticeably at ISO 3200. Fujifilm’s maximum ISO 12800 offers theoretical flexibility but with poor usable image quality, reminiscent of bright street lamps only.

For night or astro enthusiasts, neither camera excels. However, Canon’s DIGIC 6 processing rendered cleaner images up to ISO 3200 than Fujifilm’s. Canon also offers shutter speeds as slow as 15 seconds, beneficial for creative exposure techniques - Fujifilm tops at 8 seconds.

Video Capabilities: Recording the Moment

Neither camera leaps into 4K or advanced video specs, but both provide solid Full HD recording options.

• Canon records up to 1080p at 60 fps using H.264 compression. No microphone or headphone ports limit external audio options.
• Fujifilm matches 1080p at 60i (interlaced) and offers 720p at 60p.

In real-world shooting, Canon’s 60p progressive scan provided smoother motion rendition than Fujifilm’s 60i, which exhibits interlaced artifacts. Stabilization in video was comparable, helpful for handheld clips.

While neither camera supports external microphones or headphone monitoring - a limitation for serious videographers - the Canon slightly edges out for casual users aiming for crisp motion capture alongside stills.

Battery Life and Storage: Shooting Day Long?

Canon SX700 HS uses the NB-6LH battery pack rated at 250 shots per charge under CIPA testing. This is typical for compacts with small batteries.

Fujifilm S9900w uses four AA batteries and claims 300 shots per charge, giving the benefit of easy battery swaps in the field. AA batteries may add weight but are convenient in remote travel situations where charging options are limited.

Both cameras accept SD/SDHC/SDXC cards with one slot each. Fujifilm also includes internal storage, a handy albeit limited backup.

Connectivity: Sharing Made Easy?

The Canon SX700 HS offers built-in Wi-Fi with NFC for swift pairing and photo transfers - a major convenience for social shooters or travel bloggers. Fujifilm S9900w has built-in wireless but no NFC, somewhat reducing pairing efficiency.

Both have HDMI and USB 2.0 ports but lack Bluetooth or GPS modules. Neither has touchscreen interfaces to facilitate wireless navigation.

Build Quality and Environmental Durability

Neither camera features weather sealing, waterproofing, dustproofing, or shockproofing. Both are consumer-grade units best cared for in normal conditions.

The Fujifilm’s larger, more rugged design feels like it could endure bumps better but remains vulnerable in wet or dusty environments.

Real-World Photography across Genres

Let’s ground our comparison with concrete scenarios drawn from my field tests.

Portraits

Canon’s natural skin tones and better color processing create more flattering portraits, especially indoors under mixed lighting. The eye detection works adequately but limited face detection points constrain AF precision compared to mirrorless systems. The lens bokeh is average but given long zoom, background compression is effective.

Fujifilm’s cooler colors can cast paler skin tones. Its tracking AF helps with moving subjects but poorer macro focusing distance limits close-up portrait detail. I prefer Canon for casual portraiture and family snapshots.

Landscapes

Both cameras struggle against larger sensor models regarding dynamic range and overall detail. Still, Canon’s cleaner shadows help preserve detail in landscapes with high-contrast skies. Fujifilm’s longer zoom is less relevant here but the electronic viewfinder aids precise framing in outdoor conditions.

Neither camera is weather sealed, so caution outdoors is advised. For expansive framing, Canon’s wider 25mm min focal length offers a small advantage.

Wildlife

Fujifilm S9900w’s 1200mm zoom and tracking AF shine, enabling longer reach and better subject tracking in my wildlife shoots. The camera’s bulk stabilizes long lens use handheld, though bulky size can spook shy animals.

Canon’s 750mm zoom limits reach, but its better image stabilization makes some snaps sharper and less prone to blur.

Sports

High burst rate (9-10fps) helps on both cameras, but Fujifilm's tracking AF and longer zoom allow better framing and focus on athletes. Canon has edge with slightly better image quality at base ISO.

Street Photography

Canon’s small size and light weight win hands down here, allowing me to blend in and shoot candid moments. Lack of EVF is a drawback but not a deal-breaker for brief urban excursions.

Fujifilm's bulk and more DSLR-like stance draw attention and slow repositioning but offer helpful viewfinder usability in bright conditions.

Macro Photography

Canon excels with its minimum focus distance of 1 cm, letting me frame flowers and insects closely with sharp detail.

Fujifilm’s 7 cm minimum focus distance reduces magnification possibilities, limiting serious macro work.

Night / Astro Photography

Canon wins slightly with longer 15-second shutter speed and cleaner high ISO performance up to 3200. Neither camera is optimized for astro, and both struggle with noise.

Video

Canon’s 1080p 60p video is useful for casual clips. Lack of mic input is frustrating.

Fujifilm offers interlaced 1080p, which is less desirable. Neither camera targets serious videographers.

Travel

Canon’s pocketability and wireless pairing build a compelling travel companion for casual shooters.

Fujifilm, though heavier, provides longer zoom flexibility, battery convenience with AAs, and EVF for framing - all attractive for photo-intensive trips.

Performance at a Glance

Below is a synthesized overall performance rating I derived via hands-on testing and rigorous evaluation:

And a breakdown by photography genre:

Sample Image Comparisons

Let’s look at representative sample images from both cameras, taken in similar conditions:

Canon SX700 HS screen back Fujifilm S9900w front Fujifilm S9900w screen back

Observe Canon’s warmer skin tones and crisp macro detail versus Fujifilm’s longer reach shots at wildlife distances but with visible softness.

Summing Up: Who Should Buy Which?

This side-by-side has revealed these key takeaways:

• Choose the Canon SX700 HS if:

  • You want a compact, pocketable travel or street camera
  • Prioritize natural color reproduction and versatile macro shooting
  • Need a budget superzoom for portraits, landscapes, and casual videography
  • Wireless sharing and user-friendly operation matter
  • Your budget is tighter (Canon retails around $350)

• Choose the Fujifilm S9900w if:

  • Extreme telephoto reach (up to 1200mm) is critical (wildlife, sports)
  • You want a robust DSLR-like grip and electronic viewfinder
  • Tracking autofocus and burst shooting speed sway your decision
  • You don’t mind heft and bulk, and value battery swap convenience
  • Willing to invest in a niche superzoom with broader zoom capabilities (retails ~$720)

Final Considerations and Honest Reflections

Neither camera competes with higher-end enthusiast mirrorless or DSLR models in sensor size or image quality but both bring excellent zoom versatility in consumer-friendly packages.

Canon SX700 HS impressed me with its optics, compactness, and color science - a genuine traveler’s pocket rocket. Its limitations (no EVF, modest ISO ceiling, no Raw) stem from its price and sensor category but the overall balance is compelling for many.

Fujifilm S9900w delivers outstanding zoom reach and AF tracking, making it a more specialized tool for photographers chasing distant subjects rather than portability. The physical heft, lack of touchscreen, and lower rear screen resolution are trade-offs for some.

I hope this in-depth comparison aids your decision-making. Remember that testing a camera yourself (if possible) and considering lenses, accessories, and personal shooting style are important.

If you’re interested in further reading, check out my detailed hands-on reviews of other small sensor superzooms and mirrorless entries that might suit your evolving photography goals. Happy shooting!