FujiFilm S4000 vs Sony H300: A Detailed Comparison of Classic Small Sensor Superzooms

The superzoom bridge camera category has long been a favorite for enthusiasts craving long-range versatility without the bulk and expense of interchangeable lens systems. Two models that frequently emerge in budget-conscious discussions are the FujiFilm FinePix S4000 (also known as the S4050) and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H300. Despite their vintage status - announced in 2011 and 2014 respectively - these cameras offer intriguing contrasts in design, performance, and photographic potential that remain relevant for certain use cases, hobbyists, or secondary kit buyers.

In this hands-on evaluation, based on extensive experience testing thousands of cameras over 15+ years, I’ll dissect strengths and weaknesses across all major photography disciplines and technical facets. With a focus on practical, real-world performance rather than mere spec sheets, this comparison helps you decide if either camera aligns with your shooting style or if they should be avoided in favor of modern alternatives.

A Tale of Two Superzooms: Physical Design and Handling

When holding the FujiFilm S4000 next to the Sony H300, the similarities are apparent: both wield SLR-style bridge camera bodies with generous grip contours and fixed zoom lenses designed for convenience and reach.

The FujiFilm is slightly more compact, measuring 118x81x100mm and weighing 540 grams on 4 AA batteries, while Sony’s H300 is larger at 130x95x122mm and heavier at 590 grams, powered by a proprietary rechargeable battery pack.

In field use, the FujiFilm’s smaller footprint translates to a more comfortable one-handed grip and easier pocketing in larger jacket compartments, which is an undeniable plus for travel or street photography where portability matters. The Sony, while chunkier, feels solidly balanced, aided by its deeper grips that inspire confidence during extended handheld shooting - especially when zoomed far in.

Both cameras feature fixed lenses with long focal ranges (Fuji’s 24-720mm equivalent versus Sony’s 25-875mm). The Sony edges ahead in maximum tele reach but at the cost of a slight tradeoff in handling bulkiness. Ergonomically, the FujiFilm’s control layout is more minimalist, favoring simplicity, whereas Sony’s H300 offers a more traditional bridge camera button placement with clearly labeled dials.

One thing the FujiFilm lacks is a traditional optical or electronic viewfinder of high resolution; it sports an electronic finder with basic specs and approximately 97% coverage, less immersive than most enthusiasts expect. The Sony forgoes a viewfinder altogether, relying solely on its Clear Photo LCD screen with 460k-dot resolution. Both LCD screens measure 3 inches diagonally and are fixed, meaning no tilting or articulating options.

While neither design caters to professional build standards - both lack weather sealing or robust environmental protection - their solid construction enables them to survive typical travel and casual outdoor photography scenarios.

Imaging Engines and Sensor Technologies: Diving Under the Hood

Both cameras incorporate 1/2.3-inch CCD sensors measuring approximately 6.17 x 4.55 mm with roughly 28 square millimeters of sensor area, a classic design for early 2010s superzoom compacts.

Where the FujiFilm S4000 records 14 megapixels, the Sony H300 ups the count to a notable 20 megapixels. At first glance, the Sony’s higher pixel count suggests better-detail capture, particularly useful for landscape or travel photography needing large prints or cropping flexibility.

However, real-world image sharpness depends heavily on sensor technology, processing pipelines, and noise performance. The FujiFilm employs a basic CCD sensor paired with a processor not extensively detailed by Fuji, while the Sony’s Bionz(R) processor enhances signal-to-noise ratios to some extent.

Both sensors include anti-aliasing filters, reducing moiré but potentially slightly softening fine textures. Notably, neither supports RAW capture - a constraint that dramatically limits post-processing latitude for professionals or semi-pros who prefer high dynamic range extraction and noise reduction workflows.

Both cameras’ CCDs struggle beyond ISO 800, with Fuji’s max native ISO capped at 1600 and boosted sensitivity up to 6400, while Sony maxes at native ISO 3200 with no boosted ISO. CCD sensors notoriously exhibit higher noise at elevated ISOs compared to modern CMOS counterparts, making night or low-light shooting a cautious endeavor.

In terms of dynamic range, neither camera approaches modern mirrorless or DSLR standards, due to sensor size and processing limitations. Landscape photographers craving wide tonal latitude should temper expectations, though shutter speed and aperture in good light mitigates deficiencies.

Autofocus and Exposure Controls: Speed and Accuracy in the Field

The FujiFilm offers contrast-detection autofocus with face detection and multi-area AF, including tracking capability. It supports continuous and single autofocus modes, but the system can be slow, particularly at maximum zoom or in low light. There is no manual focus ring or external focus adjustment besides toggling the AF mode.

Similarly, the Sony H300 uses contrast-detection AF with face detection but lacks continuous AF in burst mode. The absence of phase detection or hybrid AF reduces subject tracking performance, resulting in occasional hunting, particularly with moving subjects like wildlife or sports.

Both cameras restrict advanced users’ manual control options. The FujiFilm allows shutter priority, aperture priority, and manual exposure modes - a generous feature set for a bridge camera of its generation. The Sony supports manual exposure but lacks dedicated shutter or aperture priority modes, offering less granular control.

Exposure compensation is available on both, facilitating adjustments for tricky lighting. The FujiFilm adds custom white balance support and bracketing (both AE and WB), enhancing flexibility in challenging scenes. The Sony offers WB bracketing but no AE bracketing, and its exposure bracketing options fall short of Fuji’s more versatile approach.

Lens and Zoom Capabilities: Range, Speed, and Sharpness

The defining characteristic of these cameras is their extensive zoom range. The FujiFilm S4000’s 24–720mm equivalent focal range provides an extremely useful wide-to-super-tele photo flexibility at 30x zoom. The Sony H300 pushes even further, covering 25–875mm (35x zoom).

Wide-angle coverage around 24–25mm equivalent lets both lenses capture landscapes, architecture, and group portraits effectively. Telephoto reach surpasses what many prime lenses offer, appealing to wildlife and sports enthusiasts on a budget or casual travelers who want all-in-one convenience.

Maximum aperture ranges from f/3.1 at wide on the FujiFilm (f/3 on Sony) to about f/5.9 at telephoto. Neither is fast, resulting in moderate low-light performance limitations and shallow depth-of-field rendering.

Both lenses support close focusing: FujiFilm claims a macro minimum focusing distance of 2cm - impressively close and great for flower or insect shots - while Sony’s macro distance is unlisted but generally less optimized.

In practice, these superzooms excel in outdoor daylight but can suffer softness, chromatic aberration, and distortion at extremes of their zoom ranges. Image stabilization is present in both: FujiFilm uses sensor-shift IS, whereas Sony employs optical IS to counteract shake. Testing suggests Sony’s optical system slightly outperforms FujiFilm’s sensor-shift in handling longer focal lengths.

Display and User Interface: Liveview and Composition

Both cameras present a 3-inch fixed LCD with 460k dot resolution, adequate for framing, menu navigation, and image review.

Sony’s “Clear Photo LCD” technology imparts slightly improved color rendition and brightness outdoors, an advantage in direct sunlight. FujiFilm’s screen is serviceable but occasionally struggles with glare.

The FujiFilm includes a basic electronic viewfinder with 97% coverage, a convenient compositional aid in bright daylight scenarios - something particularly useful when shooting at full zoom. Sony H300 omits a viewfinder entirely, relying exclusively on the LCD. The lack of a direct eye-level viewfinder can prove frustrating during prolonged use or in intense sunlight conditions.

Interface layouts diverge: Fuji’s menu is straightforward but dated, with intuitive control dials and buttons. Sony’s interface reflects its more consumer-friendly lineage, with fewer physical controls and more menu-driven options. Neither has touchscreens, limiting ease of navigating through menus or marking focus points via touch.

Burst, Video, And Connectivity: Multimedia Capabilities

Burst shooting speeds stand at a leisurely 1 frame-per-second on both cameras - unsuitable for sports or fast-moving wildlife photography where quick reflexes are paramount.

Video recording tops out at 1280x720 HD at 30 fps on both cameras. The FujiFilm saves footage in Motion JPEG format, generally resulting in larger files and less compression efficiency, while Sony leverages MPEG-4 and H.264 codecs delivering smaller files and better image quality at the same resolution.

Neither has microphone or headphone jacks, eliminating advanced audio control. Optical stabilization helps video steadiness, but low-light footage looks noisy and soft due to sensor limits.

Connectivity options are basic: both support USB 2.0 and HDMI output but lack wireless features like Wi-Fi or Bluetooth. No GPS on either, meaning no geotagging support. This combination reflects their budget or entry-level positioning circa 2011–2014.

Battery and Storage: Practicality for Extended Shoots

The FujiFilm S4000 runs on 4 AA batteries, a practical choice when traveling since AAs are ubiquitous worldwide. Battery life rates around 300 shots per charge, which is decent considering AA drain but variable depending on battery quality (alkaline vs NiMH rechargeable).

Sony’s H300 uses a proprietary lithium-ion battery that yields around 350 frames per charge. While slightly better in endurance, it requires access to a charger and potential spares - less convenient for remote excursions without power access.

Both support SD or SDHC memory cards for storage; Sony additionally accepts SDXC and Memory Stick PRO Duo variants, broadening compatibility but unlikely to alter day-to-day use for most buyers.

Image Quality and Real-World Shooting Results

No comparison would be complete without looking at image outputs to see how sensor, lens, and processing combine to form final photographs.

FujiFilm S4000 front FujiFilm S4000 screen back Sony H300 front Sony H300 screen back

Portraits

Both cameras struggle to render punchy skin tones due to the older CCD sensor characteristics and JPEG compression. FujiFilm’s color science is warmer and more flattering for skin, but its relatively low resolution and lack of RAW limit editing.

Eye-detection AF is present on both but primitive, yielding mixed reliability. Bokeh is shallow at wide apertures but generally soft and unrefined at telephoto ends due to small sensor and modest aperture.

Landscape

In daylight, Sony’s higher 20MP resolution produces crisper fine details and better cropping flexibility. FujiFilm’s 14MP files retain decent detail but fall short in dynamic range - highlights can clip easily.

Wildlife and Sports

Both cameras’ autofocus and burst rates are insufficient for serious wildlife or sports shooting. Occasional AF hunting and slow frame capture frustrate capturing fast action moments.

Street and Travel

Fuji’s smaller size and electronic viewfinder allow more discreet shooting. Sony’s larger size and lack of viewfinder make it more noticeable but compensate with longer zoom reach.

Macro

FujiFilm’s incredible 2cm macro focusing distance lets hobbyists explore close-up worlds better than Sony’s less optimized macro. Coupled with sensor-shift IS, it provides more reliable handheld macro photography.

Night and Astro

Neither camera excels in low-light or night scene capture due to CCD noise, limited ISO, and slow maximum shutter speeds (FujiFilm tops at 1/2000s, Sony less at 1/1500s). Fuji’s sensor-shift IS is a marginal benefit here.

Specialized Photography and Professional Use Considerations

For professional photography, neither camera is ideal. Absence of RAW format, limited autofocus customization, no weather sealing, and modest build quality preclude their use in demanding environments or commercial work.

File formats are JPEG only, limiting post production. Lack of tethering or wireless connectivity hinders integration into streamlined workflows common in studio or event settings.

However, for beginners or hobbyists wanting to learn manual controls, FujiFilm’s inclusion of semi-advanced exposure modes offers training value without sophisticated investment.

Overall Performance Ratings and Price to Value

Both cameras are long discontinued but remain in the used market for under $300, offering value for certain audiences.

FujiFilm S4000

• Balanced zoom range
• Good manual control options
• Sensor-shift stabilization
• Better macro capability
• Less zoom reach

Sony H300

• Longer zoom reach (35x)
• Slightly higher resolution (20MP)
• Better video codec
• Larger body, no viewfinder

Performance by Photography Type

Breaking down performance in practical photography disciplines:

• Portrait: FujiFilm leads slightly with skin tone reproduction and bokeh.
• Landscape: Sony’s higher resolution favors detailed landscapes.
• Wildlife: Neither suited due to autofocus and burst speed limitations.
• Sports: Limited burst and AF preclude serious use.
• Street: FujiFilm’s smaller size and EVF help candid shooting.
• Macro: FujiFilm best for close focus and stabilization.
• Night/Astro: Neither excels, but FujiFilm marginally better IS.
• Video: Sony edges with better compression, but 720p max.
• Travel: FujiFilm lighter and more compact; Sony’s zoom is a plus.
• Professional: Both unsuitable due to lack of RAW and advanced controls.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

If you are a photography enthusiast on a budget seeking an all-around superzoom for travel, casual portrait, and macro photography, the FujiFilm S4000 offers more control and flexibility. Its sensor-shift stabilization, manual exposure options, and close focusing ability provide creative latitude despite modest resolution.

Conversely, if maximum zoom reach and resolution for landscape or casual travel snaps are your priority, and you prioritize video compression efficiency slightly, the older but numerically higher-resolution Sony H300 is an effective option. Its larger size trades portability for reach.

Neither camera shines for fast action, professional demands, or night photography. For those genres, investing in modern mirrorless or DSLR systems is advisable.

In sum:

• Choose FujiFilm S4000 if you want flexible manual controls, better macro, and slightly better ergonomics.
• Choose Sony H300 if you prioritize extreme zoom reach, higher megapixels, and better video compression on a tight budget.

Both represent classic superzoom compromises in their price segment - a testament to the era before affordable mirrorless cameras broke these boundaries.

For enthusiasts comparing classics or collectors tracking model evolution, the FujiFilm S4000 and Sony H300 remain interesting benchmarks in bridge camera development. But for modern photography requirements, newer models or secondhand mirrorless systems offer wider capabilities.

Happy shooting!