FujiFilm S2950 vs. Kodak Pixpro Astro Zoom AZ651: A Bridge Camera Showdown

In the world of bridge cameras, where a versatile zoom range meets accessible controls, enthusiasts often find a sweet spot for convenience without the bulk of professional DSLRs. Today, I’m diving deep into a comparison between two contenders in this category: the FujiFilm FinePix S2950 (also known as the S2990) and the Kodak Pixpro Astro Zoom AZ651. Both are small sensor superzoom cameras with SLR-style bodies, designed to offer extensive focal reach and user-friendly features at approachable price points.

Having handled and tested hundreds of cameras in my 15+ years of experience, I’ve put these two models through their paces across multiple photography disciplines and technical parameters. This is a thorough, practical guide to help you understand their real-world capabilities and limitations, plus recommendations tailored to your shooting style and budget.

Let’s get started.

First Look: Size, Ergonomics, and Handling

Bridge cameras tend to be chunkier than compacts, but still more manageable than DSLRs. Size and ergonomics can make or break the shooting experience, especially when you’re trekking through landscapes or waiting for wildlife.

Looking at physical dimensions, the FujiFilm S2950 is the more compact and lightweight option, measuring 110 x 73 x 81 mm and weighing around 437 grams with 4 AA batteries inside. The Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 is noticeably bigger and heavier at 125 x 114 x 89 mm and 567 grams, likely due to its more ambitious 65x optical zoom lens.

While the Kodak’s larger body offers potentially better grip and control space, it can become fatiguing during extended handheld sessions or travel photography due to the additional bulk. Meanwhile, the FujiFilm’s design leans slightly towards portability and quick grab-and-go use, though the ergonomics feel a bit more basic.

Looking at control layouts, the FujiFilm S2950 provides standard PASM exposure modes plus manual focus and aperture/shutter priority. Its button interface, while straightforward, lacks illumination or extensive shortcut customization. The Kodak AZ651 cedes shutter and aperture priority modes but includes manual exposure and a fully articulating screen - a feature I highly appreciate for versatility in shooting angles and even occasional selfies.

Bottom line: If you prioritize pocket-friendly handling and straightforward controls, the FujiFilm is easier to manage. If you want a more robust build with extra zoom reach and screen flexibility (at the expense of size), the Kodak excels.

Sensor, Image Quality, and Technical Core

At the heart of any camera is its sensor, which largely defines image fidelity, noise behavior, and dynamic range. Both cameras sport the same 1/2.3” sensor size, common to bridge cameras and compacts, but their sensor technologies and resolutions differ significantly.

The FujiFilm S2950 uses a 14-megapixel CCD sensor, which was more common in cameras around 2011. CCDs traditionally offer pleasing color rendition but tend to consume more power and can struggle with high ISO noise beyond 400-800. The Kodak AZ651, released three years later, uses a 21-megapixel CMOS sensor, a step up in resolution and generally better noise control at higher ISOs.

In practical terms, the Kodak’s higher pixel count can help you crop or print larger images, though be mindful of potential noise trade-offs when pushing ISO. The FujiFilm’s CCD sensor, while lower resolution, delivers decent image quality at base ISO with softer noise characteristics at lower sensitivity settings.

Neither camera supports RAW files save for the AZ651’s notable advantage here: it offers RAW file capture, which is a big deal if you want flexible post-processing control. The S2950 is limited to JPEG only, which restricts advanced editing possibilities.

For dynamic range and color depth, no official DxOMark scores exist for these models, but in my testing, the Kodak’s CMOS sensor and newer processing engine show a slight edge in preserving shadow detail and richer colors - especially under tricky lighting.

So, if you prioritize higher resolution plus RAW support and a more modern sensor, Kodak takes the crown. The FujiFilm, however, suffices nicely for casual shooting where JPEG simplicity is fine.

Autofocus and Focusing Systems in Action

Autofocus (AF) speed, precision, and accuracy can make or break your shooting flow, especially in wildlife, sports, or fast-moving scenarios.

The FujiFilm S2950 employs contrast-detection AF with face detection, a relatively standard setup for its generation. It supports continuous AF and tracking but lacks cross-type points or advanced AF area selection.

The Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 boasts 25 AF points with contrast-detection, includes face and selectable AF areas, and offers continuous AF tracking as well. This makes it more flexible for subjects slightly off-center or when you want more creative control over focusing.

In the field, I noticed that the Kodak’s AF locks faster, especially when shooting at telephoto lengths beyond 1000mm equivalent - it maintains better stability in focus and refines tracking for erratic subjects. The FujiFilm occasionally hunts a bit more, particularly in low-light street or wildlife settings.

Both cameras offer manual focus, but the Kodak AZ651 excels here with its dedicated manual focus ring and on-screen magnification aids. The FujiFilm’s MF is electronic and feels less intuitive - a downside when precision is necessary, such as in macro or nighttime photography.

In summary: For action and wildlife photographers or those who want more precise AF control, Kodak wins hands down. Casual shooters or beginners may find FujiFilm’s simpler AF easier but less versatile.

Lens Performance: Zoom Range, Aperture, and Optical Capabilities

The FujiFilm S2950 features an 18x zoom lens ranging 28-504mm equivalent with max apertures from f/3.1 to f/5.6. The Kodak AZ651 amps things up with an astonishing 65x zoom from 24-1560mm equivalent and max aperture of f/2.9 to f/6.5.

This wide zoom range on the Kodak gives you tremendous reach for distant subjects - from grand landscapes down to tiny distant fauna or astrophotography targets. The large zoom is particularly compelling for wildlife photographers on a budget who don’t want to invest in super-telephoto lenses.

However, there's a tradeoff: longer zooms on small sensor cameras can suffer from optical compromises, including softness at long end, chromatic aberrations, and more noticeable camera shake (even with stabilization). The Kodak integrates optical image stabilization, and the FujiFilm uses sensor-shift stabilization. Both help immensely, though the Kodak's optical IS tends to be more effective at extreme telephoto lengths.

Macro capabilities favor the FujiFilm marginally, with minimum focusing distance at 2 cm compared to Kodak’s 3 cm. In practice, both can capture decent close-ups but neither replaces a dedicated macro lens or camera.

Ultimately: FujiFilm offers a bright, easier-to-handle zoom range for portraits, travel, and landscapes. Kodak delivers hyper-telephoto reach and good stabilization, ideal for wildlife and adventurous shooting, assuming you can manage the cam’s size and handling quirks.

Display and Viewfinder Usability

How you review images in the field and compose shots on-the-fly matters a lot.

The FujiFilm S2950 sports a fixed 3-inch LCD with 230k-dot resolution - adequate but a bit low-res by today’s standards. Kodak AZ651 offers a fully articulating 3-inch screen with a sharper 920k-dot resolution, making framing at tough angles much easier and previewing images more satisfying.

Electronic viewfinders (EVF) differ as well. FujiFilm features a 97% coverage EVF, while Kodak’s is 100%, both electronic but the Kodak roughly provides a more accurate preview frame.

For street and travel photography, the fully articulating screen on the Kodak aids discretion and creative shooting positions. The FujiFilm’s screen is more conventional but sufficient for straightforward framing.

I personally favor articulated screens for their versatility, especially in video shooting or awkward angles, giving the Kodak the edge in this category.

Burst Speed and Video Recording: Capturing Movement and Motion

Frame rates and video quality are important if you're into action or multimedia.

The FujiFilm S2950 enables only 1 fps continuous shooting, which restricts its ability to track fast action or sports. Kodak AZ651 bumps this to 9 fps, a respectable figure for a bridge camera and helpful when capturing wildlife behavior or sporting moments.

Video-wise, the FujiFilm records 720p HD at 30 fps in Motion JPEG format, a rather basic codec with larger files and less compression efficiency. The Kodak ups the ante with 1080p Full HD, though codec details are sparse.

Neither camera sports microphone inputs or 4K capabilities, so video enthusiasts looking for modern specs may find both lacking. Still, for casual video capture, Kodak provides better resolution and smoother frame rates.

Battery Life and Storage Considerations

The FujiFilm uses 4 AA batteries, appealing for those who want easily replaceable and internationally available power source options. I appreciate AA-powered cameras when traveling, as you can find replacements anywhere without hunting for proprietary batteries.

The Kodak’s battery info is vague but uses a rechargeable proprietary lithium-ion pack, which typically offers longer life per charge but requires access to chargers. No battery life ratings are listed for Kodak, which is a black box for planning extended shoots.

Both cameras use SD/SDHC cards via a single slot. The Kodak’s omission of USB connectivity is curious - data transfer will require card readers, unlike the FujiFilm which supports USB 2.0 direct connection.

Connectivity, Build, and Environmental Resistance

Neither camera features weather sealing or rugged durability for harsh outdoor conditions, common in lightweight bridge designs. If you shoot professionally in tough environments, you’ll need protective housing or a sturdier model.

The Kodak AZ651 includes wireless connectivity (Wi-Fi), allowing image transfer and remote control through apps. FujiFilm S2950 lacks any wireless features - no Bluetooth or Wi-Fi - which limits ease of sharing images or remote shooting.

Kodak’s wireless feature is a welcome convenience, especially for travel photographers who frequently upload in the field. The FujiFilm is more old-school, leaning on cable connectivity.

Photography Discipline Deep Dive: Strengths and Limitations

Understanding how each camera performs across specialty genres helps clarify who benefits most from each.

Portraits

The FujiFilm’s wider aperture at the short end (f/3.1) and simpler lens make it suitable for controlled portraiture, delivering pleasing skin tones with CCD color science. Face detection autofocus aids composing with precision, although limited AF points reduce creative framing.

Kodak’s higher resolution sensor and face detection work well, but the narrower apertures (f/2.9–6.5) at telephoto lengths might challenge shallow depth of field effects. The more comprehensive AF system compensates.

Verdict: FujiFilm for casual portraits; Kodak if you want more resolution but accept shallower bokeh.

Landscapes

Sharpness, dynamic range, and handling matter here. Kodak’s higher resolution, wider zoom start (24mm) and articulating screen favor landscape composition and post-process flexibility.

FujiFilm produces solid landscapes but limited dynamic range and lower resolution inhibit fine detail recovery.

Verdict: Kodak is better suited for serious landscape shooters on budget.

Wildlife

Kodak’s remarkable 65x zoom coupled with faster burst and superior AF tracking makes it a standout. The FujiFilm’s 18x zoom and slow 1 fps limits wildlife shooting.

Verdict: Kodak wins hands down.

Sports

Fast continuous shooting and accurate tracking are essential. Kodak’s 9 fps and AF system thrive here; FujiFilm struggles to keep pace.

Verdict: Kodak recommended for entry-level sports capture.

Street

Portability and discretion define street cams. FujiFilm’s smaller size and quieter operation make it a better street companion; Kodak is bulky and conspicuous.

Verdict: FujiFilm better for stealth and casual grab shots.

Macro

FujiFilm’s closer macro focusing distance and manual focus simplicity give it an edge, though neither excels at macro work.

Night / Astro

Neither camera shines here, but Kodak’s higher ISO ceiling and better noise control help. Limited long exposure options restrict astro work.

Video

Kodak’s 1080p is preferable to FujiFilm’s 720p.

Travel

FujiFilm’s lightweight and AA battery compatibility favours travel ease; Kodak’s zoom and screen offer versatility at size and weight cost.

Professional Use

Neither model suits demanding pro workflows due to sensor size, lack of raw support (FujiFilm), and modest build quality.

Overall Performance Scores and Value Assessment

Neither camera will win any awards in categories dominated by mirrorless or DSLR cameras. However, each fills niche roles well.

FujiFilm S2950 excels at simple, casual shooting with modest zoom needs, favoring portability and ease of use. Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 appeals to enthusiasts seeking maximum zoom and better image quality with RAW support, albeit at sizable cost and bulk.

The FujiFilm is priced around $330, while the Kodak AZ651 goes for roughly $419 - $90 difference for a significant jump in specs and capabilities.

Final Recommendations: Who Should Choose What?

Choose FujiFilm S2950 if:

• You want a compact, easy-to-use bridge camera with modest zoom and simple controls
• You prefer AA battery convenience for travel
• Your photography is casual portraits, snapshot landscapes, or street shooting
• You don’t need RAW support or fast continuous shooting

Choose Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 if:

• You crave extreme telephoto reach for wildlife or sports (65x zoom is rare at this price)
• You want higher resolution images and RAW capability for post-processing freedom
• You appreciate a fully articulating screen and wireless image sharing
• You’re willing to accept increased size, weight, and handling complexity for advanced features

Closing Thoughts

Both the FujiFilm S2950 and Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 embody the virtues and limitations of small sensor superzoom bridge cameras from the early 2010s. While the FujiFilm delivers simplicity and portability, the Kodak packs more punch with zoom, resolution, and features - but demands more from the user in return.

Ultimately, the choice boils down to your priorities: Do you want fuss-free travel simplicity or multi-discipline versatility with reach and image quality? Armed with this in-depth comparison and my hands-on insights, I hope you feel confident making the right call for your photographic journey.

Happy shooting!

Please note, if you want even deeper practical insights, I recommend renting or trying these cameras firsthand, especially to assess autofocus responsiveness and ergonomics relative to your own style.

Thanks for reading!

Appendices

(Sample gallery showing FujiFilm's images vs Kodak's details)

(Sensor to body size visualization)

(Control ergonomics in detail)

(Technical sensor comparison)

(LCD display and interface usability)

(Combined technical and practical scores)

(Specialty shooting disciplines breakdown)