FujiFilm FinePix AV200 vs FujiFilm FinePix S1600: A Hands-On Comparison for Enthusiasts

When it comes to choosing the right compact or superzoom camera that fits your photography style and budget, the FujiFilm FinePix AV200 and S1600 have drawn curious attention among enthusiasts hunting for capable yet affordable options from the early 2010s. Both cameras share the FujiFilm legacy but cater to different users - the AV200 leaning into ultra-portability and simplicity, and the S1600 embracing versatility with its “bridge” form factor and long zoom reach.

Having spent years putting countless cameras through rigorous testing - covering everything from sensor tech and autofocus accuracy to ergonomics and real-world workflow - I find that comparing these two models side-by-side surfaces some illuminating insights. This article unpacks their practical strengths and weaknesses across photography genres, examining key specifications, performance nuances, and usability factors to help you decide which camera best suits your photographic ambitions.

Let’s dive deep, shall we?

Seeing is Believing: Comparing Their Physical Presence and Handling

First impressions matter - and in camera use, handling can make or break your shooting experience. The FujiFilm AV200 is a classic compact with a minimalist design aimed at effortless point-and-shoot operation. Its body comes in at a lightweight 168 grams and dimensions of 93 x 60 x 28 mm, running on two AA batteries. In contrast, the FujiFilm S1600 is a heftier bridge camera shaped in an SLR-style body, weighing 337 grams, and measuring 110 x 73 x 81 mm, powered by four AA batteries.

Handling the AV200 feels like holding a straightforward everyday shooter - small enough to slip in your pocket, but its thin form factor limits substantial grip comfort and button real estate. The S1600, on the other hand, offers a more substantial grip and a design that encourages manual controls without overwhelming the user. The larger body fortunately accommodates a broader button placement and a textured grip that’s easier for extended shooting sessions.

From my tests, the S1600’s ergonomics are better suited for photography enthusiasts who crave some level of control beyond auto modes, while the AV200 favors casual shooters valuing portability.

Control Layout and Usability: Which Camera Gives You More Command?

Moving from size to control layout, it’s revealing to look at their topside design, which drastically affects shooting fluidity especially in changing light or fast-paced scenes.

The S1600 features classic shutter priority, aperture priority, and full manual exposure modes - a rarity in compact cameras of its era. Dedicated dials and buttons make adjusting settings straightforward without fumbling through menus. Conversely, the AV200 forgoes any manual exposure modes altogether, limiting users to fully automatic or program-controlled shooting. Its control interface consists of modest buttons and lacks a mode dial, catering to simplicity rather than versatility.

In practical evaluation, the S1600’s control scheme encourages experimentation and tailored exposure settings - a definite advantage for photographers familiar with shooting beyond auto. For new or occasional shooters, the AV200's simplicity might actually be an asset, reducing complexity.

The Heart of the Image: Sensor Technology and Resolution

Both cameras incorporate 1/2.3-inch CCD sensors - a sensor size common in compact cameras that balances cost and portability with moderate image quality. The AV200 offers a 14MP resolution, slightly higher than the S1600’s 12MP count. But megapixels are only part of the story.

Despite its higher pixel count, the AV200’s image quality does not necessarily outshine the S1600. CCD sensors tend to produce pleasant color reproduction and good dynamic range under optimal lighting but fall short in low-light conditions due to smaller pixel sizes and higher noise levels compared to modern CMOS sensors.

The S1600’s slightly lower resolution combines well with sensor-shift image stabilization, which is absent in the AV200, helping reduce blur in handheld shots - particularly at telephoto ends. The lack of RAW support in both cameras limits post-processing flexibility, but the S1600’s better noise control and stabilization yield marginally superior image results in varied shooting situations.

Evaluating the Viewing Experience: Screens and Viewfinders

Screen size and quality impact framing and reviewing shots in the field. The AV200 sports a 2.7-inch TFT LCD with a modest 230k pixel resolution, fixed and non-touch enabled. The S1600 upgrades to a 3-inch LCD of the same resolution and includes an electronic viewfinder (EVF) covering approximately 99% of the frame - a key advantage for shooting in bright daylight where LCD glare is problematic.

Having used both in various lighting, I prefer the S1600’s EVF for precise composition and battery preservation. The AV200's screen feels cramped and can struggle under direct sunlight. Neither camera offers touchscreen controls, which is understandable given their generation but is a drawback compared to newer models with more intuitive interfaces.

Image Samples: Real-World Output From Both Cameras

Technical specs tell part of the story; actual sample images show how these cameras perform under practical conditions.

FujiFilm AV200 front FujiFilm AV200 screen back FujiFilm S1600 front FujiFilm S1600 screen back

Look closely at color rendering, sharpness, and dynamic range - the S1600 tends to render colors a bit more saturated and sharp, with less noise visible at ISO 400. The AV200 delivers accurate colors but sometimes softer details, reflecting its smaller lens aperture at longer focal lengths.

Both cameras reveal noise creeping in at ISO 800 and above, making them better suited for daylight or well-lit scenes rather than dim interiors or night shots.

Unlocking Photography Genres With These Cameras

Camera choices often hinge on intended photographic pursuits. Let’s explore how each fares across a spectrum of genres.

Portrait Photography: Handling Skin Tones and Focus

Portrait work demands accurate skin tone reproduction, pleasant background blur (bokeh), and reliable autofocus - especially eye-detection, if available.

Neither camera features face or eye detection autofocus, which you’ll find in modern cameras. The AV200’s autofocus system is contrast-detection only and tends to hunt in low light. Its three-times zoom lens (32-96 mm equivalent) limits focal length flexibility for flattering portrait focal lengths (usually around 85mm). Also, apertures at telephoto reach f/5.2, which restricts bokeh potential and low-light capability.

The S1600 delivers a broader focal range (28-420 mm) with a 15-times optical zoom, letting you capture tighter headshots or environmental portraits with ease. While its maximum aperture of f/4.0 at the wide end and f/4.8 at telephoto isn’t bright, it’s more practical for controlled portraiture. The sensor-shift stabilization also aids sharper handheld portraits.

Bottom line: If you want simple snapshots and don’t care much about bokeh or autofocus sophistication, the AV200 suffices. If portrait flexibility matters, especially telephoto reach and sharper autofocus, the S1600 is preferable.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Detail

Landscape shooters prize high resolution, dynamic range, and weather sealing. Neither FujiFilm camera is weather-sealed, so use caution outdoors.

The AV200’s 14MP sensor theoretically offers more resolution for large prints or cropping. However, in my testing, the S1600’s lenses deliver crisper edges and better contrast despite fewer megapixels. Both cameras exhibit limited dynamic range, with shadow clipping noticeable in high contrast scenes.

Neither camera would satisfy professionals seeking ultra-high fidelity landscapes, but the S1600’s optical stabilization and zoom versatility enhance composition options in outdoor environments.

Wildlife and Sports Photography: Autofocus and Speed

For fast action, autofocus speed, burst rate, and telephoto reach are critical.

With a 15x zoom reaching 420 mm equivalent compared to AV200’s modest 3x 96 mm, the S1600 is the clear winner here. Although burst rates max out at 1 fps on both cameras - frustratingly slow for action - the S1600 has contrast-detection autofocus that is generally snappier, though hunting is still evident in lower light or complex backgrounds.

Neither is ideal for professional sports or wildlife shooting, but for casual use or distant subjects, S1600’s reach and stabilization are advantageous.

Street Photography: Discretion and Quick Operation

Street photographers value compact, unobtrusive cameras with fast autofocus and decent low-light ability.

The AV200’s small size scores well here, slipping into a pocket easily and drawing less attention. However, the lack of manual controls and slower AF may require patience. The S1600’s bulkier body and longer lens make it less discreet, but its faster AF acquisition partly compensates.

In low light, both struggle beyond ISO 400, but the AV200 commonly displays more noise and blur due to lack of stabilization.

Macro Photography: Getting Close and Sharp

Macro capability depends on minimum focus distance, magnification, and stabilization.

The S1600 shines with a close focus down to 2 cm, supported by sensor-shift stabilization - great for handheld macro shots of flowers or insects, albeit not at professional magnification levels. The AV200 lacks macro specs entirely, limiting its usefulness here.

Night and Astro Photography: ISO Performance and Exposure Control

Low-light shooting challenges small-sensor cameras, and unfortunately, both struggle.

Maximum ISO tops at 1600, with boosted modes up to 3200 on the AV200, but image noise at higher ISOs detracts greatly. No long-exposure bulb mode or dedicated astro settings are present. The S1600 offers shutter priority and manual exposure modes, giving more control for night scenes.

If you’re serious about night or astro photography, these cameras underperform by modern standards.

Video Capabilities: Resolution, Stabilization, and Audio

Both record 720p HD video at 30 fps with Motion JPEG codec, a dated format compared to current standards. There are no microphone or headphone ports, limiting audio control.

The S1600’s sensor-shift stabilization improves video steadiness, whereas the AV200 has none. Neither camera supports 4K or advanced compression.

For casual home video, both work acceptably, but modern smartphones or newer cameras beat them easily.

Travel Photography: Versatility and Battery Life

Travel demands a balance of size, flexibility, and stamina.

The AV200’s light weight, compact size, and AA batteries that are easy to source worldwide make it an attractive travel companion if your shooting is limited to snapshots. Battery life yields approximately 180 shots per set of AA batteries.

The S1600 offers greater zoom versatility (important when you can’t get close physically), better stabilization, and manual controls. Its larger size and weight are tradeoffs; battery life claims aren’t specified but likely shorter given the bigger sensor and EVF.

Technical and Build Quality Analysis

Both models feature a CCD sensor, which produces pleasing color fidelity but lags CMOS sensors in noise control and power efficiency. Neither supports RAW capture, limiting post-processing freedom.

Autofocus in both cameras is contrast-detection without phase-detection or advanced tracking - typical of their time and segment, but frustrating in dynamic scenes.

Image stabilization exists only in the S1600 via sensor-shift tech, enhancing handheld usability, especially at telephoto and in video.

Neither camera has weather sealing or rugged construction. Both rely on AA batteries, convenient but less energy-dense than proprietary packs.

Storage is handled via SD/SDHC cards with a single slot on both.

Connectivity features are minimal: no Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or HDMI, and USB 2.0 for file transfers.

Putting It All Together: Performance Ratings and Recommendations

Here’s a summary to reflect overall performance - based on my hands-on experience assessing sharpness, color, AF speed, usability, and functionality.

...and drilling down by photographic genre:

Final Thoughts: Which FujiFilm Camera Fits Your Needs?

Choose the FujiFilm AV200 if:

• You want a lightweight, pocketable camera for casual, everyday snaps
• Battery availability worldwide is important (uses just 2 x AA)
• You prefer simplicity over manual settings and top control freedom
• Your photography mainly involves bright daylight or travel snapshots
• You have a tight budget and don’t require extended zoom or stabilization

Opt for the FujiFilm S1600 if:

• You desire significantly more zoom reach for portraits, wildlife, or travel
• Stabilization and a viewfinder are important for sharper images and better composition
• You want access to manual, aperture, and shutter priority modes for creative control
• Macro photography matters and you need a close focusing distance
• Slightly better low-light performance and higher sensitivity are goals
• You can accommodate the bulkier body and heavier weight

Both cameras stand as relics that represent a snapshot of compact photography’s evolution a decade ago. In my hands-on testing, the S1600 emerges as the more versatile and capable shooter, though neither meets modern standards for speed, video, or low-light prowess.

If budget allows, and you seek a small superzoom with manual controls, the S1600 hits the spot. For walk-around convenience and simple point-and-shoot use, the AV200 remains an easy pick - especially if you’re nostalgic for a pure, uncomplicated camera experience.

Hope this detailed comparison helps you settle the FujiFilm question with confidence. For more hands-on insights, images, and testing methodology details, stick around my channel and blog - happy shooting!

All image rights belong to FujiFilm and original photographers.

End of Article