FujiFilm S1600 vs Kodak Pixpro Astro Zoom AZ651: Which Bridge Camera Fits Your Photography Life?

Choosing between bridge cameras can be challenging, especially when you’re eyeing options like the FujiFilm FinePix S1600 and the Kodak Pixpro Astro Zoom AZ651. Both arrived with a superzoom promise and an approachable DSLR-like design, but they come from different eras, sporting distinct specs and performance characteristics. I’ve spent ample hands-on time with similar cameras in the past, so let’s dive deep into a practical, no-nonsense comparison to see which of these two small sensor superzooms deserves your attention today.

First Impressions: Size, Handling, and Ergonomics

Physically, these cameras present as compact, bridge-style shooters designed for enthusiasts and advanced beginners who want more zoom reach than typical point-and-shoots offer. But there's a noticeable difference in their size and weight that factors into daily use and travel.

Notice the FujiFilm S1600’s smaller footprint and lighter weight compared to the Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651.

The FujiFilm S1600 is significantly more compact and lighter at just 337 grams versus Kodak’s substantially heavier 567 grams. This makes the FujiFilm more pocketable and less fatiguing for extended handheld sessions. It's just 110x73x81 mm, while the Kodak measures 125x114x89 mm, standing out with a chunkier frame that's less discrete but might feel more substantial in the hands.

Controls-wise, the FujiFilm keeps things straightforward with a basic mode dial and limited manual focus options, while the Kodak ups the ante slightly with manual focus capability and a fully-articulated screen (more on that in a bit).

The FujiFilm’s fixed 3-inch LCD has a basic resolution of just 230k dots, which feels outdated, but the Kodak’s screen jumps ahead to 920k dots with full articulation and selfie friendliness, catering better to vlogging or creative angles. I’ll explore these UI aspects later with a dedicated image comparison.

Under the Hood: Sensor, Optics, and Image Quality

When choosing a camera, sensor technology and lens capabilities are the core stones of image quality and flexibility.

Both cameras share a 1/2.3” sensor size, but Kodak’s 21MP CMOS delivers more resolution versus FujiFilm’s 12MP CCD sensor.

Both cameras use the same small sensor size of 1/2.3 inch (6.17x4.55 mm), but Kodak’s AZ651 boasts a 21-megapixel CMOS sensor, whereas FujiFilm’s S1600 employs an older 12MP CCD unit. This difference is crucial. In practical terms, the Kodak provides higher image resolution (5184x3888 pixels vs Fuji’s 4000x3000), allowing for more detailed cropping and larger prints. The CMOS design also generally handles noise more efficiently, with Kodak offering native ISO sensitivity up to 3200 against FujiFilm’s max 1600 ISO. This should translate to cleaner images in low-light - though, don’t expect miracles given the sensor size constraints common in bridge cameras.

The Kodak sensor supports RAW capture, giving enthusiasts and professionals greater control in post-processing - a significant advantage over the FujiFilm, which shoots only JPEG.

Optics tell a different story. The FujiFilm S1600 has a 15x zoom range from 28-420mm (35mm equivalent) with an aperture of f/4.0-4.8. In contrast, the Kodak AZ651 impresses with a 65x zoom stretching all the way from 24-1560mm at f/2.9-6.5. That ultra-long reach is a game changer for wildlife, sports, or surveillance photography, but beware of potential image quality trade-offs at the telephoto limit. The wider aperture on the Kodak’s wide end also helps in indoor or dim environments.

If you’re after versatility and maximum zoom range in a single package, Kodak wins; for everyday shooting or landscapes where sharpness and consistent aperture are essential, FujiFilm may still hold its ground despite the shorter zoom.

Layout and Controls: Intuitive Design Matters

How a camera feels and how quickly you can access settings often make or break a shoot, especially in dynamic genres like sports or street photography. Let’s inspect the control layout from above.

Kodak’s more modern control layout offers direct access to continuous shooting and a small joystick, while FujiFilm keeps it simple.

Kodak’s AZ651 features 25 autofocus points with multi-area and tracking AF, plus face detection, allowing you to lock focus swiftly on moving subjects. Manual focus rings and buttons are provided, giving tactile feedback. Fuji’s S1600 lacks dedicated focus points and relies on simpler contrast-detection autofocus without face detection, resulting in slower and less accurate AF tracking.

The FujiFilm offers shutter and aperture priority modes, giving you exposure control, whereas Kodak’s settings are a bit more limited, lacking shutter speed priority, but includes manual exposure. Neither supports extensive bracketing or advanced exposure modes, which might frustrate some enthusiasts.

In continuous shooting speed, Kodak again comes ahead with a rapid 9 fps burst, great for catching fast action, versus FujiFilm’s sluggish 1 fps. For sports or wildlife photographers, that’s a notable upgrade.

Viewing and Interface: LCD Screen and Viewfinder Usability

The rear display is where photographers spend a lot of time composing and reviewing shots. FujiFilm’s fixed screen is muted and lacks touch or articulation. The Kodak, with its fully articulated, brighter, and much higher-resolution screen, opens creative framing possibilities.

Kodak’s articulated, high-res LCD shines in live view and framing, unlike FujiFilm’s basic fixed screen.

Both cameras offer electronic viewfinders (EVFs) with nearly full frame coverage, but the Kodak EVF boasts 100% coverage versus FujiFilm’s 99%, a minor difference but appreciated in precision work. Unfortunately, neither EVF offers notably high resolution - be prepared for somewhat grainy previews.

Kodak’s live view autofocus with tracking and face detection makes framing moving subjects easier. FujiFilm’s lack of face detection or tracking is a definite downside for modern usage.

Real-World Performance Across Photography Disciplines

Understanding where each camera excels in specific genres helps you match your photographic ambitions to the right tool.

FujiFilm S1600 front FujiFilm S1600 screen back Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 front Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 screen back

Portraits: Skin Tones and Bokeh Quality

If portraits are your game, smooth skin rendering and pleasing background blur matter. Neither camera has a large sensor or fast prime lenses to deliver creamy bokeh easily (due to physical depth of field limits). However, Kodak's wider lens aperture at 24mm (f/2.9) creates slightly softer backgrounds for close-ups compared to Fuji's f/4.0.

Regarding skin tones, FujiFilm cameras have traditionally excelled in out-of-camera color rendering, but older CCD sensors like the S1600’s can result in flatter, less punchy images. Kodak's CMOS native ISO and RAW support provide more latitude for skin tone adjustments in post.

Neither camera has eye-detection autofocus, so you'll need to get precise focusing manually or rely on single-point AF modes. FujiFilm’s lack of face detection can make portrait shooting less convenient.

Landscape: Dynamic Range and Resolution

Landscape photographers will find the Kodak’s higher resolution and RAW support preferable for large prints and extensive post-processing. FujiFilm’s CCD sensor tends to exhibit less dynamic range, making it tougher to hold details in shadows and highlights.

Neither camera features environmental sealing, so shooting in adverse weather requires extra care. FujiFilm's smaller dimensions mean it’s easier to carry for long hikes, but Kodak’s lens might include optical coatings that reduce flare at wide angles.

Wildlife and Sports: Autofocus Speed and Burst Rate

Kodak’s 25-point AF with tracking and 9 fps burst rate clearly targets action shooters and wildlife photographers eager to freeze motion. The 1560mm equivalent zoom is a monster for distant subjects, but expect some softness at the extreme reach.

FujiFilm’s contrast-detected AF can feel sluggish and less reliable for tracking moving subjects, significantly limiting its utility in sports or wildlife. Plus, the 1 fps burst rate isn’t competitive.

Street and Travel Photography: Discretion and Portability

FujiFilm’s small size and lower weight win for street and travel photography where discretion and long carrying comfort are priorities. Kodak’s large body and longer zoom can attract attention and tire you faster during walks.

However, the Kodak’s articulated screen provides compositional flexibility in crowds or low angles, which can be a creative advantage.

Battery life data isn’t provided for either, but FujiFilm’s reliance on 4 x AA batteries is practical for travel - easy to swap anywhere - while Kodak likely uses proprietary batteries, which can be less convenient.

Macro and Close-Up Capabilities

For macro enthusiasts, FujiFilm offers a closer minimum focusing distance at 2cm compared to Kodak’s 3cm, enabling tighter framing of small subjects. Both have image stabilization: FujiFilm with sensor-shift, Kodak with optical stabilization. In my experience, sensor-shift often provides steadier shots for macro handheld work, but optical IS in the Kodak should still aid critical shots.

Night and Astro Photography: Low Light Performance and ISO Range

Kodak’s maximum ISO of 3200 doubles FujiFilm’s 1600, coupled with a larger megapixel sensor and modern CMOS tech. This translates into better usable high-ISO images and makes low-light shooting or nightscapes more viable.

Neither camera supports bulb mode or advanced night shooting features, and the maximum shutter speed is 1/8 second hard limit on FujiFilm, while Kodak specs are less clear but likely comparable.

If night or astro photography is a priority, consider dedicated models, but Kodak’s specs give it an edge here.

Video: Recording Quality and Usability

Video functions are minimal but worth comparing. FujiFilm records HD video at 1280x720p at 30fps with Motion JPEG codec - a format that eats storage space quickly and lacks professional flexibility. Kodak steps up with full HD 1080p video recording, a meaningful capability for casual videographers.

Neither has microphone or headphone ports, limiting audio quality control. FujiFilm lacks an HDMI output, whereas Kodak includes it, allowing external monitors or recorders - valuable for vloggers or hybrid shooters.

Image stabilization helps with handheld video on both, with Kodak using optical stabilization considered more effective in reducing shake.

Build Quality, Weather Resistance, and Durability

Neither camera offers any environmental sealing, dustproofing, shockproofing, or freeze resistance. Both are consumer-grade bridge cameras better suited for fair-weather casual or enthusiast work.

The Kodak’s heavier body feels more robust but also less pocket-friendly. FujiFilm trades ruggedness for portability.

Connectivity and Storage

Connectivity is a weak point for FujiFilm, with only USB 2.0 available and no wireless options. Kodak includes built-in wireless (Wi-Fi), facilitating easier image transfer to smartphones and tablets - a significant convenience in today’s connected world.

Both cameras rely on a single SD/SDHC slot, a standard and practical choice.

Price and Value Consideration

The FujiFilm FinePix S1600’s street price around $130 places it well below the Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651’s roughly $420 range. For budget buyers needing an affordable superzoom for casual use, the FujiFilm might be attractive - despite its dated specs.

However, for photography enthusiasts requiring higher resolution, better video, faster autofocus, and versatility in shooting modes, Kodak’s AZ651 justifies its price premium by delivering substantial performance gains.

Summing Up Performance with All Factors Rated

Final Thoughts: Who Should Buy Which?

Buy the FujiFilm FinePix S1600 if:

• You’re a casual photographer on a tight budget looking for a solid entry-level superzoom.
• Portability and lightweight design are paramount, especially for travel or street photography.
• You prefer simple controls without the complexities of advanced autofocus systems.
• You want basic manual exposure options but don't need RAW or high res.

Opt for the Kodak Pixpro Astro Zoom AZ651 if:

• You demand a massive zoom range for distant subjects like wildlife or sports.
• You need higher resolution, RAW shooting, and advanced AF tracking for creative control.
• Better video quality with HD 1080p and HDMI output matters for your workflows.
• You prefer wireless connectivity to quickly share images on social media or mobile devices.

A Personal Note from My Testing Experience

Having tested thousands of cameras across various genres, I can tell you that small sensor superzooms often force compromises. The FujiFilm S1600 recalls an earlier era of digital cameras - good for beginners, but showing its age in today’s context. The Kodak AZ651 boldly aims to tailor to more demanding users with large zooms and better tech, but its bulk might deter some.

If you are planning to do serious wildlife, sports, or video work on a budget, the Kodak is the clearer choice. If your photography is mostly casual, landscape, or travel with an emphasis on easy handling, the FujiFilm suffices and saves money.

Both cameras have limitations compared to modern mirrorless or DSLR systems, but within their category, Kodak pushes boundaries where FujiFilm plays it safe.

Choosing your camera is always about balancing what you need with what you’re willing to carry and pay. Hopefully, this comparison helps clarify which bridge camera fits your photography lifestyle best.

Happy shooting!