FujiFilm FinePix JX300 vs. Fujifilm FinePix JX500: A No-Nonsense Hands-On Comparison

In the budget-friendly, small sensor compact camera crowd, FujiFilm has two intriguing contenders: the FinePix JX300 (2011) and its somewhat younger sibling, the FinePix JX500 (2012). At first glance, these two share a lot in common - a 14MP 1/2.3" CCD sensor, 5x zoom lenses, basic image stabilization (or lack thereof), and some entry-level video capabilities. But as someone who's spent countless hours behind the viewfinder testing entry-level compacts, I know that even small differences can impact daily shooting experience, image quality, and value for money.

This article digs beneath the spec sheet carefully and puts these two FujiFilm models head-to-head across all the major photographic applications. From portrait skin tones to wildlife burst performance, and street candidness to macro sharpness, we'll scrutinize them like a pro but keep things friendly for passionate amateurs and cheapskates alike.

Let's fire up the engines and take a detailed look into everything you need to know to pick your next cheap-but-cheerful pocket camera.

First Impressions and Build: Size, Feel, and Usability

Right out of the gate, ergonomics and physical presence influence whether a camera wants to come along on your shoots. These are diminutive little things, but with subtle differences that are worth knowing.

The FujiFilm JX300 measures 94x56x24mm and weighs 130 grams, while the JX500 is a smidge taller at 100x56x24mm but lighter at 113 grams. That 17 grams difference is negligible but combined with the JX500’s slightly larger footprint, it feels a bit less “toy-like” and more substantial in the hand.

From my hands-on experience, the JX300's slightly smaller size might win favors with ultra-portable pocket shooters who hate clubs for thumbs on their gear. But if you like a hint of grip, the JX500’s bulkier build offers a tiny edge in handling - keeping the camera a bit steadier during snaps, which is crucial given neither model has image stabilization.

Both share the basic, plastic-heavy build typical of budget compacts - not exactly rugged, so neither is the one to toss in raindrops or desert dust without a protective bag.

Top Panel and Control Layout: Quick-Draw Shooting?

When you want to grab your camera fast and nail the shot, how your controls feel and respond is critical. FujiFilm hasn’t reinvented the wheel here, but nuances matter.

Both have a minimalistic top plate: a power button, shutter release, zoom rocker, and built-in flash toggle. Interestingly, the JX500 has slightly larger buttons, making it easier to manipulate with gloves or in clumsy moments. The zoom control on both feels smooth but slightly more tactile on the JX500.

Neither features dedicated exposure controls (no ISO dial or aperture priority), so you’re dependent on full auto or limited scene modes - common in this class but a downside for creative types who want quick manual override.

If you value physical controls over touchscreen fiddling (neither model has touchscreens), the slightly upgraded control ergonomics of the JX500 will feel less cramped in daily usage.

Sensor, Image Quality, and Lens Specs: The Heart of the Matter

Here’s where things start to get interesting. Both cameras sport a 1/2.3" CCD sensor with 14 megapixels - standard fare for their release period - offering the same sensor area of roughly 28.07 mm². No RAW shooting mode on either, sadly, meaning you’re committed to JPEG straight out of camera.

The 1/2.3" sensor size limits low-light capabilities and dynamic range compared to larger APS-C or full-frame sensors you might find in higher-end Fuji models later on. They both have an anti-alias filter (which softens detail a touch but prevents moiré), but expect grain and noise to creep around ISO 800 and above.

Lens-wise, the JX300 offers a 28-140mm equivalent lens (5x zoom) with an aperture range of f/2.6-6.2, while the JX500 nudges the wide end to 26-130mm (also 5x zoom), but with a slower aperture starting at f/3.5 through to f/6.3. In practical terms, that means the JX300 can gather more light at the wide end - helpful in lower lighting or for separating subjects from backgrounds with shallower depth of field.

A personal anecdote: When shooting portraits, I found the marginally brighter wide lens of the JX300 beneficial in indoor environments, providing slightly creamier bokeh (what little there is on small sensor compacts). The JX500, while sharper and a touch better at telephoto edges, struggled a bit more under dim conditions - you’ll need good light or a steady hand to avoid soft shots.

LCD Screen and User Interface: What You See Is What You Get

For composing shots and navigating menus, screen quality can make or break your experience, especially if you rarely use an external viewfinder.

Both sport fixed, non-touch 2.7-inch LCD screens with a modest 230K pixel resolution. Neither has optical or electronic viewfinders, so you rely entirely on the LCD for framing.

The JX500’s screen uses a TFT color LCD which provides slightly better contrast and viewing angles compared to the generic LCD of the JX300. For casual daylight use, both screens suffice, but in direct sunlight, the JX500’s display has a small edge in visibility.

User interfaces are barebones: no touch, no custom function buttons, just simple menu navigation with physical buttons. For newcomers, the straightforward menus translate to minimal fuss, but for the more ambitious photographers, it might feel limiting.

Photography Capability by Genre: Which Camera Suits Your Style?

Let’s break down real-world use across popular photography disciplines. I’ll share pragmatic insights based both on specs and first-hand shooting trials.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones, Eye Detection, and Bokeh

Neither model offers face or eye detection autofocus, a feature more common in modern prosumer cameras. They rely on center-weighted autofocus and contrast detection which can hunt in dim or low-contrast situations (especially on JX300 which supports continuous AF but not continuous on JX500).

The JX300’s slightly faster wide aperture and effective noise processing deliver more pleasing skin tones with less image mushiness in direct daylight. Bokeh is minimal due to sensor size and lens design but the JX300’s lens at f/2.6 does produce marginally better subject isolation if you get close enough.

Winner: JX300 for slightly better low-light portrait shots; Both lack advanced autofocus aids.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Resolution

At 14MP, both provide usable resolution for small prints or web sharing, but don’t expect to crop aggressively.

The CCD sensor in these models tends to excel slightly over CMOS in color depth and muted noise at base ISO - good for landscapes if you stick to well-lit scenarios. Neither has advanced dynamic range enhancement or RAW support, so capture carefully with exposure compensation or bracketing (not supported here).

Given their identical sensor size and resolution, resolution and base image quality are neck and neck, but the JX500’s slightly wider lens (26mm vs 28mm) may win the edge for wider vistas.

Winner: Slight nod to JX500 for wide-angle field, but overall tie.

Wildlife & Sports: Burst Rates and Autofocus Speed

Both cameras disappoint sports and wildlife enthusiasts. With a continuous shooting rate of just 1 fps (frames per second), attempting to capture fast-moving animals or athletes will be catching smoke with a butterfly net.

Autofocus on these cameras uses contrast detection only. The JX300 supports continuous AF, giving it a tiny boost in tracking potential, while the JX500 restricts you to single AF and some tracking modes without continuous active focus.

Long lenses for reach? Both max out at ~130-140mm equivalent - not enough for serious wildlife photography.

Winner: JX300 by a small margin due to continuous AF; both quite limited for action.

Street Photography: Discreetness, Portability, and Low Light

Here the JX500’s lighter weight and balanced grip give it an advantage for tossing in a jacket pocket during all-day wanderings. The slight increase in size of the JX500 doesn't detract much but may be less pocket-friendly.

Low light performance on both is mediocre due to the small sensor and lack of image stabilization. Neither has silent shutter mode - all mechanical clicks loud enough to draw attention.

The absence of face detection is unfortunate for candid street portraits, but both are workable if you manually focus quickly and keep ISO low to avoid noise.

Winner: JX500 for portability and marginally better handling; JX300’s brighter lens helps in daylight.

Macro Photography: Close-Up Crispness and Focus

Both offer macro focusing at 10 cm, which is standard for their class. The lack of optical image stabilization hurts close-up sharpness but the contrast-detection AF is reasonably accurate on still subjects.

I found the JX300 occasionally struggled to lock focus in macro mode under mixed lighting, whereas the JX500 was a bit steadier once locked - but no tilt screen or focus peaking to aid precise focusing.

Winner: Slight edge to JX500 for autofocus reliability; neither shines but adequate for casual macro.

Night and Astro Photography: High ISO and Exposure Control

Neither model is suited for astrophotography - small sensors and max ISO of 1600 native, 3200 boosted. Low light images get noisy, and long exposures max out at 8 seconds on JX300, and 8 seconds on JX500 as well.

No bulb mode or manual exposure control narrows creative options. Without RAW files, noise reduction is baked in, helping nominally but offering little post-processing flexibility.

Winner: Tie - with limitations to both in this genre.

Video Capabilities: Recording Specs and Stabilization

Both record 720p HD video at 30 fps in Motion JPEG format - adequate for casual video but not serious filmmaking.

Neither camera has microphone or headphone ports for audio control, and both lack optical or digital stabilization, meaning handheld video will be shaky unless you have a very steady grip.

Winner: Tie - both entry-level and nearly identical in video features.

Travel Photography: Versatility and Battery Life

For travelers needing a lightweight all-rounder, the JX500’s lighter 113g weight and included NP-45A battery helps slightly. Battery life on the JX300 rated around 180 shots per charge; JX500’s exact figures are missing but expect a similar ballpark.

Both accept SD/SDHC cards, with the JX500 adding SDXC compatibility - meaning less hassle with high-capacity cards on long trips.

No wireless connectivity on either means you’re stuck with USB 2.0 for image transfer - no Wi-Fi or Bluetooth convenience, a big con in a modern travel context.

Winner: JX500 for lighter body and SDXC support, but both limited by lack of connectivity.

Professional Workflow and Reliability

Neither camera targets pros; no RAW, no manual exposure modes, no fast continuous shooting, and basic autofocus. They’re simple point-n-shoots.

Neither is weather sealed or rugged, so be careful outdoors. File output is JPEG only - with limited in-camera editing options.

That said, for social media snapshots, reference shots, or quick documentation, these cameras offer simple reliability.

Winner: Neither designed for pro workflow; user-friendly for absolute beginners.

Technical Deep Dive: Sensor and Autofocus Analysis

Despite lacking DXO Mark scores, real-world tests show the CCD sensor delivers better color rendition than many entry CMOS sensors at the time, especially in skin tones and outdoor light.

The autofocus system is contrast detection only, slower than phase detection found in DSLRs or mirrorless, and makes these cameras unsuitable for fast subjects.

Limited ISO range and lack of stabilization mean you’ll want ample light to get sharp images. Both cameras’ processors employ noise reduction aggressively, compromising some detail - typical for budget compacts.

Connectivity, Storage, and Battery: Practical Considerations

Neither camera sports Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, which in 2020s terms is a major con if you want instant sharing. USB 2.0 connections are slow and awkward.

Storage-wise, the JX300 supports SD/SDHC cards, whereas the JX500 additionally supports SDXC cards, allowing the use of the latest large capacity cards - a forward-looking feature at the time.

Battery life is similar but the JX300 uses a proprietary battery pack (model unspecified), while the JX500 uses the more common NP-45A lithium-ion. In practice, I found JX500 batteries easier to replace or find secondhand.

Price-to-Performance: Which Camera Offers the Better Deal?

Retail prices at launch were close: JX300 ~$110 and JX500 ~$90. Given the improved ergonomics, lighter body, larger lens width, and better battery standardization, the JX500 edges price/value-wise.

However, if you need a slightly faster lens wide-open and a bit more responsive autofocus, and don’t mind the slightly heavier build, the JX300 still holds appeal.

In today’s market, both cameras are so affordable that choice depends more on availability and personal handling preference than specs alone.

Sample Image Quality: Real Photos Speak Louder Than Specs

FujiFilm JX300 front FujiFilm JX300 screen back Fujifilm JX500 front Fujifilm JX500 screen back

Looking at images side-by-side, the JX300 photos show slightly richer skin tones and warmer color rendering, owing to Fuji’s film simulation style CCD sensor.

The JX500 images show a little more edge sharpness on the telephoto end, and improved contrast, but with marginally harsher highlight handling.

Neither camera excels in noisy shadows or high dynamic range scenes - but that’s expected from this class.

Overall Scores: How They Stack Up

Based on real-world testing and feature set, the JX500 generally scores marginally higher due to better ergonomics, lens reach, battery options, and slightly improved usability.

The JX300, however, remains commendable for its brighter lens and continuous AF capability.

Genre-Specific Strengths and Weaknesses

Pros and Cons at a Glance

FujiFilm FinePix JX300

Pros:

• Brighter lens at wide end (f/2.6) for improved low-light and portrait shots
• Continuous autofocus supported
• Slightly smaller form factor

Cons:

• Heavier body
• Smaller lens zoom range (28-140mm) vs JX500’s 26-130mm
• Proprietary battery, complicating spares

FujiFilm FinePix JX500

Pros:

• Lighter by 17g for all-day carry comfort
• Wider zoom lens start (26mm) for landscapes
• Supports SDXC cards and common battery type (NP-45A)
• Slightly better LCD screen with TFT tech

Cons:

• Narrower aperture at wide end (f/3.5) can hamper low light
• No continuous autofocus
• Slightly bulkier body

Final Verdict: Which Budget Fuji Compact Camera Should You Pick?

If you’re in the market for an ultra-budget compact and must choose between these two:

• Choose FujiFilm FinePix JX300 if:
  You want the best possible image quality in daylight portraits or general photos from these two, appreciate a slightly brighter lens for indoors, and don’t mind an older battery pack or a slightly heavier body.

• Choose Fujifilm FinePix JX500 if:
  You value better handling, lighter weight, and longer wide-angle reach for landscapes; want the convenience of a common battery and SDXC compatibility; and find continuous autofocus less critical.

Both cameras aren’t going to satisfy serious photographers - they lack manual controls, RAW, fast AF, and image stabilization. But they offer a no-frills, easy-to-use camera for beginners, budget-conscious buyers, or as a backup.

If you’re willing to stretch your budget slightly, I’d also explore newer compacts or entry-level mirrorless options that offer improved sensors, autofocus, and connectivity.

Wrapping Up: Compact Cameras with a Twist of Fuji DNA

The FujiFilm FinePix JX300 and JX500 illustrate how small sensor compacts are a study in compromises. They’re designed for casual use, snapshot photography, and those who value simplicity and price over cutting-edge tech.

My advice: handle them in hand if possible before buying (feel and ease of use is everything here), and think carefully about what your primary photography genres are - portrait warmth, travel ease, landscape perspectives - then match that to the strengths outlined above.

These FujiFilm compacts won’t wow seasoned photographers, but as affordable, dependable pocket shooters in the early 2010s tradition, they hold their ground with quiet humility.

Happy shooting - and may your next camera be your trusty companion, no matter its megapixels.

End of article.