Comprehensive Comparison: Fujifilm FinePix F500 EXR vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200

When evaluating small sensor superzoom cameras in the $400-$500 range, the Fujifilm FinePix F500 EXR and Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 often emerge as candidates. Both cameras target enthusiasts desiring long zoom reach in compact forms, capable of delivering versatile performance out-of-the-box without interchangeable lenses. To aid informed purchasing decisions, this detailed comparison dissects their design, core imaging technology, photographic capabilities across disciplines, and real-world usability. Leveraging hands-on testing techniques and industry-standard performance metrics, the analysis highlights critical differences impacting image quality, autofocus, ergonomics, and value in practical scenarios.

Body Design and Handling: Compact vs Bridge Ergonomics

At first glance, the Fujifilm F500 EXR epitomizes compactness with its modest 104 x 63 x 33 mm footprint weighing only 215 g. Its slim profile allows genuinely pocketable use, an asset for street, travel, and casual shooting where discretion and portability are paramount. However, the lack of any viewfinder demands dependency on the rear LCD, which restricts usability in bright environments.

In contrast, the Panasonic FZ200 adopts a substantial bridge (SLR-like) form factor measuring 125 x 87 x 110 mm and weighing 588 g - nearly three times as heavy. This larger body accommodates an integrated electronic viewfinder with 1.3M-dot resolution and 100% coverage, critical for precise composition under variable lighting. Its robust grip and plethora of manual controls improve one-handed operation and shooting flexibility, especially in demanding conditions.

The control layout also reflects divergent philosophies. The Fujifilm is minimalist with essential buttons and a fixed rear 3-inch 460K-dot TFT screen, suitable for users preferring simplicity but limited in ergonomic refinement. Panasonic’s top and rear controls, detailed in this comparison’s top-view-compare.jpg, exhibit direct access dials for aperture, shutter speed, drive modes, and dual command wheels, enabling advanced manual shooting workflows.

Practical takeaway: Users prioritizing pocketability and ultra-light travel will lean towards the F500 EXR, accepting compromises in extended shooting comfort and visibility. Professionals or enthusiasts who value tactile controls and a viewfinder for fieldwork benefit from the FZ200’s bridge style despite its bulk.

Sensor and Image Quality Fundamentals

Though both cameras employ small sensors typical of their superzoom category, subtle technical contrasts significantly influence output. The Fujifilm F500 EXR relies on a 1/2-inch EXR CMOS sensor spanning 6.4 x 4.8 mm with 16MP resolution (4608 × 3456 pixels). This sensor is paired with Fujifilm’s proprietary EXR processor tailored for noise reduction and dynamic range optimization in compact cameras. However, the F500 EXR does not support RAW capture, limiting post-processing flexibility.

Panasonic’s FZ200 features a slightly smaller 1/2.3-inch CMOS sensor (6.17 x 4.55 mm) at 12MP (4000 × 3000 pixels) alongside the Venus Engine VII FHD processor. Crucially, it supports RAW output, enabling experts to finely tune images in post-production, an advantage for professional workflows. The FZ200’s sensor optimization, coupled with its fixed F2.8 lens, results in superior low-light performance and color fidelity compared to the F500 EXR.

The image sensor size, pixel density, and processing translate into differences in dynamic range, color depth, and ISO noise handling. While the Fujifilm's larger pixel count might suggest finer detail, in practice, the Panasonic’s sensor and processing architecture deliver cleaner images at higher ISOs and improved highlight preservation.

Screen and Interface: Usability Under Variable Conditions

The rear LCD is crucial for framing, reviewing, and menu navigation, especially given the F500 EXR’s lack of any viewfinder. Both cameras offer a 3-inch rear monitor of 460K dots resolution. However, Fujifilm’s screen is fixed and employs a conventional TFT technology that often struggles with glare.

Panasonic's FZ200 incorporates a free-angle articulated TFT display of the same size and dot count but allowing tilt and swivel. This facilitates shooting at high/low angles, a boon for creative compositions and macro work. The FZ200 also integrates an electronic viewfinder, rendering it more versatile in bright outdoor scenes or for shooters desiring eye-level composition.

The interface responsiveness and menu logic further differentiate the two. Panasonic’s menus are structured for both novice and experienced users, featuring direct access to video modes, focus options, and image quality settings. Fujifilm’s interface is simpler, serving casual photographers but possibly frustrating advanced users seeking granular control.

Lens and Zoom Capabilities: Reach vs Aperture Consistency

Both cameras feature fixed, superzoom lenses characteristic of their category but diverge sharply in capabilities.

• Fujifilm F500 EXR: 24-360 mm (15x zoom equivalent) lens with F3.5-5.3 maximum aperture.
• Panasonic FZ200: 25-600 mm (24x zoom equivalent) lens with a constant F2.8 maximum aperture throughout the zoom range.

The Panasonic lens notably outperforms in maximum aperture speed, maintaining bright F2.8 from wide-angle to telephoto. This characteristic markedly improves autofocus speed, depth of field control, and low-light shooting, especially at longer focal lengths. In contrast, the Fujifilm’s variable aperture reduces light intake significantly when zoomed in, impairing autofocus responsiveness and generating softer images in dim conditions.

FZ200’s lens also boasts enhanced macro capabilities (minimum focus distance of 1cm versus 5cm from the Fujifilm) and more effective optical image stabilization, crucial for hand-held telephoto shots. The Fujifilm employs sensor-shift stabilization but without detailed claims on effectiveness, likely delivering less pronounced impact at high zoom.

The lens build quality also favors Panasonic: fully manual focus override and zoom ring detents provide tactile feedback and precise control, essential for wildlife and sports photographers requiring fast, accurate framing.

Autofocus System: Speed, Accuracy, and Tracking

AF technology is critical for capturing sharp images across genres, especially wildlife, sports, and macro.

• Fujifilm F500 EXR uses contrast-detection autofocus without phase detection, lacks face or eye detection, and offers basic multi-area AF with ambiguous focus point counts. Continuous AF and tracking modes exist but are limited by slower processing and less advanced algorithms.
• Panasonic FZ200, also contrast detection only, expands AF area to 23 selectable points, integrates face detection, and supports continuous AF tracking with measurable responsiveness improvements. It benefits significantly from the fast F2.8 lens enabling autofocus to lock quickly even at telephoto lengths.

In practice, the FZ200 exhibits faster lock speeds and more reliable subject tracking in varied lighting and action scenes. Fujifilm’s autofocus can lag and struggle in low contrast or fast-moving subjects, reducing suitability for sports or wildlife photography requiring rapid focus adjustments.

Continuous Shooting and Performance Metrics

Burst frame rates affect a camera’s usefulness for action photography.

• Fujifilm F500 EXR: 3 fps continuous shooting (no silent shutter option).
• Panasonic FZ200: 12 fps continuous burst rate, a significant advantage for capturing fast sequences.

Higher frame rates on the FZ200 enable capturing decisive moments in sports and wildlife, while the Fujifilm’s slower burst limits utility in these domains.

Looking at DXOMark scores for reference, the FZ200 with an overall score of 37 and dynamic range of 10.8 better outperforms expectations for small sensor superzooms, while Fujifilm’s F500 EXR remains untested but is understood to score lower in dynamic range and color depth.

Photography Disciplines: Practical Performance Evaluations

Portraits: Skin Tones and Bokeh

Portrait photography benefits from accurate skin tone reproduction and pleasing subject separation.

• Fujifilm F500 EXR: Larger sensor area slightly aids image rendition, but lack of RAW and focus limitations impair finer control. Bokeh quality is moderate due to slower lens aperture.
• Panasonic FZ200: Constant F2.8 supports more aesthetically pleasing shallow depth of field and smoother background blur. Face detection AF corroborates sharp facial detail capture.

Recommendation: Panasonic FZ200 is preferable for portrait enthusiasts seeking richer tones and better background separation.

Landscapes: Resolution, Dynamic Range, and Weather Resistance

Landscape work demands high resolution, dynamic range, and durability.

• The Fujifilm’s 16MP sensor offers higher max resolution (4608 × 3456) versus Panasonic’s 12MP. However, Panasonic’s RAW file support and slightly better noise handling at base ISO yield stronger dynamic range preservation.
• Neither camera is weather-sealed, limiting reliability in adverse conditions.
• Lens sharpness and flare control favor Panasonic on wide ends; Fujifilm suffers more optical distortion.

Wildlife: Autofocus Speed and Telephoto Reach

• Panasonic’s longer focal length (600mm) and high frame rate provide superior reach and quicker acquisition of elusive subjects.
• Superior AF tracking and image stabilization on the FZ200 improves keeper rates in unpredictable wildlife conditions.
• Fujifilm is challenged in both focal length range and AF responsiveness.

Sports: Tracking, Frame Rate, and Low Light

The FZ200 again leads with 12 fps burst, fast AF, and bright lens, facilitating low light performance and fast-action sequences.

Fujifilm is limited to 3 fps and slower focus, diminishing suitability outside very casual sports photography.

Street Photography: Discretion and Portability

• Fujifilm’s compact size and light weight offer significant advantages for street photographers prioritizing inconspicuousness.
• The FZ200’s bulk and SLR-style form factor are more obtrusive.
• Both cameras lack silent electronic shutters, but Fujifilm’s smaller presence minimizes disruption.

Macro: Magnification and Focusing Precision

• Panasonic focuses down to 1cm with effective image stabilization, enhancing sharp close-ups.
• Fujifilm’s minimum macro distance of 5 cm limits fine detail capture in tight compositions.

Night and Astrophotography: ISO Performance and Exposure Control

• Panasonic’s sensor coupled with F2.8 aperture and ability to capture RAW facilitate better high ISO noise control.
• Fujifilm does not support RAW and features a smaller aperture at telephoto, restricting night scene options.
• Neither has specific astro modes but manual exposure and shutter priority are present.

Video: Resolution, Frame Rates, and Stabilization

• Both record Full HD (1920 × 1080) video; Fuji maxes at 30 fps MPEG-4, Panasonic reaches 60 fps in AVCHD and MPEG-4.
• Optical IS on the FZ200 is more effective than Fujifilm’s sensor-shift.
• Panasonic supports external microphone input, a significant advantage for serious videographers.
• Neither offers 4K or advanced video features.

Travel Photography: Versatility and Battery Life

• Fujifilm’s small dimensions and weight are travel-friendly but lack of a viewfinder can be cumbersome under sunlight.
• Panasonic’s extensive zoom and articulating screen provide framing flexibility but at a noticeable weight cost.
• FZ200 boasts a rated battery life of 540 shots per charge, favorable for long trips.

Technical Features and Workflow Considerations

• Build Quality: Neither camera offers environmental sealing; users should exercise caution in adverse weather.
• File Formats: Panasonic supports RAW, enabling enhanced post-processing; Fujifilm does not, restricting workflow options for professionals.
• Connectivity: Both lack wireless or Bluetooth connectivity, limiting instant sharing capabilities.
• Memory: Both utilize SD cards; Panasonic includes internal storage which can be useful as a backup.
• User Interface: Panasonic’s more extensive AF point selection, face detection, and manual control rings facilitate advanced photographic techniques.
• Price-Performance: With pricing near $430 for Fujifilm and $499 for Panasonic, the FZ200’s richer feature set justifies the premium barring any portability emphasis.

Real-World Image Samples

Comparing sample images from numerous controlled tests, Panasonic’s FZ200 produces sharper, cleaner images at telephoto with less chromatic aberration and better color accuracy. Fujifilm’s shots emphasize higher resolution but suffer from noisier shadows and less vibrant tones under identical conditions.

Fujifilm F500 EXR screen back Panasonic FZ200 front Panasonic FZ200 screen back

Summary of Strengths and Compromises by Model

Recommended Use Cases

Choose the Fujifilm F500 EXR if:

• Portability and lightweight design are critical - ideal for casual street shooters and travelers who carry minimal gear.
• You prefer straightforward operation without the complexity of advanced manual controls.
• Budget constraints prioritize the lowest price point in this category.

Choose the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 if:

• You require a versatile superzoom with consistent bright aperture for low light and telephoto shots.
• You value professional-level manual control, RAW capture, and better video specifications.
• Your photographic interests span wildlife, sports, macro, and portrait disciplines where fast autofocus and burst shooting improve keep rates.
• The extra bulk and weight is an acceptable trade-off for enhanced ergonomic handling and compositional flexibility.

Conclusion

Both the Fujifilm FinePix F500 EXR and Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 deliver competent performance as small sensor superzoom cameras but cater to largely divergent use cases due to their design philosophies and feature implementations. The F500 EXR excels in portability and ease of use for casual, travel, and street photographers who accept modest compromises in autofocus and image quality. Conversely, the FZ200 robustly addresses enthusiasts and semi-professionals requiring extended zoom reach, faster responsiveness, superior lens speed, and richer manual controls, reflecting over a year of refinement in Panasonic’s superzoom lineage.

Photographers with an emphasis on image quality, manual operation, and video proficiency will find the Panasonic FZ200 a more capable, future-proof choice despite its weight and price premium. On the other hand, the Fujifilm FinePix F500 EXR remains a reliable budget-friendly option for less demanding photographic needs where convenience and simplicity rule.

Making an informed purchase hinges on weighing these dynamics against personal photography priorities. This comparison underscores that no single camera fits all; understanding these nuanced trade-offs aids users in selecting the model best aligned with their creative goals and shooting environments.