Shooting Superzooms: A Hands-On Comparison of the Fujifilm F900EXR and Kodak Z981

When it comes to small sensor superzoom cameras, few categories promise so much - a compact form factor married to an ambitious zoom range that can capture everything from wide vistas to distant details. If you’re delving into this niche, you’ve likely encountered contenders like the Fujifilm FinePix F900EXR and the Kodak EasyShare Z981. Both cameras channel the spirit of versatile bridge cameras designed to be your grab-and-go solution for everyday photography adventures.

Having put both of these models through their paces, I’m here to dissect what they bring to the table - from sensor tech and ergonomics to autofocus quirks and burst shooting capabilities - mixing a bit of hands-on insights with deep technical understanding gathered from years of evaluating cameras. Whether you’re the casual snapshooter, the ambitious enthusiast, or even a budget-minded professional looking for a backup, this detailed comparison aims to help you navigate the muddy waters of superzooms with confidence.

Let’s jump in.

The First Impression: Size, Feel, and Design

Size matters, especially when lugging cameras all day or sneaking around for street photography. Between these two, the difference is immediately tangible.

The Fujifilm F900EXR weighs a trim 232 grams and measures roughly 105x61x36mm - truly pocketable for a superzoom with its 20x optics. Compactness doesn’t just mean convenience; it often translates to user comfort during extended shooting sessions.

Contrast that with Kodak’s Z981, which tips the scales at a hefty 540 grams and measures 124x85x105mm. It sports an SLR-like “bridge camera” body style that attempts to give more of an opaque, dSLR experience, but it comes with extra bulk and heft.

In person, the Fujifilm feels nimble and more travel-friendly. The Kodak, while still manageable, feels more like you’re wielding a brisket rather than a feather. If portability and discretion rank high on your wishlist, the Fuji is likely to win your heart. Yet, if you prefer a camera that feels substantial and potentially more stable in your hands during telephoto shots, Kodak’s chunkier layout gives that reassuring grip.

Looking closer at controls, here’s a peek at their top plates:

Fuji keeps things streamlined with an intuitive dial for manual mode, exposure compensation, and a well-aligned zoom rocker. Kodak doubles down on the “bridge camera” design cues, adding more tactile buttons but also more complexity - which some may find empowering, others cumbersome.

Sensor Specs and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Superzoom compacts are notorious for tiny sensors with middling performance - with a heavy push on zoom reach meaning trade-offs abound. But don’t underestimate these cameras; they each try to squeeze maximum image quality from their modest sensors.

The Fujifilm F900EXR features a 1/2" EXR CMOS sensor with a resolution of 16MP, measuring 6.4 x 4.8 mm, totaling an area of 30.72 mm². This sensor, paired with the EXR II processor, especially shines in balanced exposure scenarios thanks to its unique pixel grouping tech that aims for improved dynamic range and noise control.

The Kodak Z981 uses a 1/2.3” CCD sensor with 14MP resolution at 6.08 x 4.56 mm area (27.72 mm²). CCD sensors historically offer pleasing color rendition but can struggle with noise at high ISO levels, particularly compared to modern CMOS counterparts.

In side-by-side testing under various lighting, the Fuji’s EXR sensor delivers crisper images with finer detail preservation and better high ISO performance up to ISO 3200 native (boostable to 12800, though those settings are more noise-prone). Kodak's sensor, while respectable at base ISO 64 and up to 6400, surrenders ground in low-light and dynamic range.

For landscape shooters craving punchy, nuanced tonal gradation, the Fujifilm’s sensor offers a notable step up. Kodak fans might appreciate its more saturated colors - vibrancy that lends itself nicely to certain subject matter - but expect a trade-off in shadow recovery and noise control.

Lens and Zoom: Long Reach and Aperture Profiles

Superzooms make bold promises about zoom range, but actual versatility depends heavily on usable focal length and maximum aperture.

Fuji equips the F900EXR with a 25-500 mm (20x) fixed lens, max aperture F3.5-5.3. Kodak wins here with a longer 26-676 mm (26x) zoom, and a brighter aperture range of F2.8-5.0. That extra speed at the wide end gives Kodak a subtle advantage in lower light and creative depth of field control - especially noticeable in macro and portrait arenas.

However, optical quality and stabilization also matter to the zooming experience. Both cameras include image stabilization - Fuji uses sensor-shift, Kodak relies on optical stabilization. Fuji’s sensor-shift system performed slightly better in my hands, particularly at full zoom tele lengths and slower shutter speeds, minimizing blur from handshake.

Neither camera’s aperture is overly fast (no surprise), but Fuji’s slight disadvantage at the wide end is balanced by better IS and a cleaner sensor output.

Autofocus Systems under the Lens

Autofocus can make or break a camera's practicality, especially in wildlife and sports photography. Here's where Fuji and Kodak diverge significantly.

• The Fujifilm F900EXR sports contrast-detection autofocus augmented by phase detection (a rarity in this class). It supports continuous AF, face detection, and tracking - essential features for moving subjects. Its AF speed is brisk and accuracy reliable in good light, and surprisingly competent under mixed conditions.

• The Kodak Z981 uses a contrast-detection only AF system without phase detection, and no continuous AF support. It lacks face detection and advanced tracking, making it better suited for static subjects and casual shooting rather than action or wildlife.

In my real-world experience, Fuji’s AF locks on swiftly and tracks effectively, a boon for sports shooters or anyone aiming for crisp moments on the run. Kodak feels slower to lock and struggles against unpredictable movements or low-light autofocus tasks.

Shooting Speed: Continuous Burst Performance

Are you the kind to chase decisive moments or capture fleeting wildlife action? Continuous shooting rates matter.

The Fujifilm F900EXR offers an impressive burst mode topping at 11 frames per second (fps) - faster than many mirrorless cameras of that era. This makes it surprisingly useful for dynamic subjects, albeit with some buffer and autofocus limitations.

The Kodak Z981 maxes out at 1 fps for continuous shooting. This shutter lag and slow burst rate limit its usability for sports or wildlife sequences.

Burst speed coupled with reliable AF puts the Fujifilm head and shoulders above Kodak for fast-action genres.

Viewing Experience: Screens and Viewfinders

Both cameras adopt conventional 3” fixed LCD screens, but resolution and usability differ significantly.

Fuji’s 920k-dot TFT LCD delivers bright, sharp live view with good color accuracy.

Kodak’s screen falls short at 201k dots (massively lower), resulting in a significantly less crisp preview experience, making manual focus or exposure adjustments trickier.

Kodak compensates somewhat with an electronic viewfinder (EVF), however without specified resolution or coverage percentages. The EVF's low resolution and narrow coverage felt limiting in practical use.

Fuji opts for no viewfinder, relying fully on LCD - but its superior screen quality makes composing easy and enjoyable outdoors.

Handling Different Photography Genres

How do these cameras fare across disciplines? Let me take you through:

Portrait Photography

Portraits demand good skin tone rendition, smooth bokeh, and strong eye-detection AF.

• Fujifilm offers face detection and eye AF (to some extent), improving focus accuracy on human subjects. Its sensor captures natural skin tones - less prone to oversaturation.

• Kodak lacks face detection entirely, and while its brighter wide end aperture (f/2.8) can facilitate shallower depth of field, the smaller 1/2.3" sensor hampers true background blur, meaning creamy bokeh is limited on both.

Landscape Photography

Landscape shooters prize resolution, dynamic range, and weather durability.

• Fuji’s 16MP EXR CMOS sensor returns richer dynamic range and better highlight retention, complemented by solid color fidelity.

• Kodak, with its 14MP CCD sensor and weaker noise handling, lags behind in shadow detail and is more prone to clipping in highlights.

Neither camera offers weather sealing, which is a limitation for serious landscape expeditions - pack your rain cover.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

These genres demand aggressive autofocus, long reach, and fast burst modes.

• Fuji’s 500mm (effective) zoom, phase-detection AF, face detection, tracking, and 11fps burst mode combine for a surprisingly capable package.

• Kodak’s 676mm reach looks appealing but is offset by slower AF, no tracking, and paltry 1fps burst rate. The net result? More missed shots than captures.

Street Photography

Here compactness, discretion, and fast autofocus are key.

• Fuji’s nimble size, quiet operation, and quick AF make it better suited to candid streetscape captures.

• Kodak’s bulkier design and slower AF make it cumbersome for unobtrusive street shooting.

Macro Photography

Close focus distance and focusing precision matter here.

• Fuji impresses with 5cm macro range and superior autofocus precision.

• Kodak’s macro close focus is 10cm - less nimble at tight framing, and combined with slower AF, less precise.

Night and Astrophotography

This demands high ISO performance and special exposure modes.

• Fuji’s flexible native ISO 100–3200 range, boostable to 12800, and sensor tech handle low-light better - plus features like manual exposure help here.

• Kodak’s ISO peaks at 6400 but with more noise and less dynamic range, limiting astrophotography potential.

Neither camera offers dedicated modes like built-in bulb or star trails, so external control is needed.

Video Capabilities

Fuji captures Full HD 1080p at both 60 and 30 fps with H.264 codec, HDMI output, and sensor-shift stabilization, delivering smoother handheld footage.

Kodak peaks at 720p 30fps, lacking HDMI and external mic input, making it more a quick grabber than a video workhorse.

Ergonomics, Battery, and Connectivity: Real-World Usability

Build and handling affect your shooting experience beyond specs.

Both cameras lack environmental sealing - neither weatherproof nor dustproof.

Fuji’s lighter build and ergonomic grip excel for long sessions. Kodak’s bigger body can be harder to wield for extended handheld shooting.

Battery-wise, Fuji uses proprietary NP-50A battery offering 260 shots per charge, while Kodak relies on 4x AA cells - convenient but adds weight and potentially inconsistent power performance.

Connectivity-wise, Fuji includes built-in wireless for image transfer, an HDMI port, and USB 2.0 interface - modern convenience untouched by Kodak’s lack of wireless or HDMI.

Lens Ecosystems and Expandability: Fixed Lens Limits

Both are fixed lens systems with no interchangeable lens mount. This restricts your creative flexibility but simplifies ownership.

Fujifilm’s 20x zoom range balances versatility and optical performance well for a bridge camera.

Kodak boasts a longer zoom but knows its limitations, especially when reaching extremes where image softness creeps in.

Putting It All Together: Performance Ratings at a Glance

Here’s a composite score overview based on my hands-on tests and industry benchmarks:

And focused genre scoring paints the bigger picture:

Conclusion: Which One Should You Pick?

Fujifilm FinePix F900EXR stands out for photographers wanting a lightweight, versatile superzoom with excellent image quality, fast autofocus, and burst shooting - ideal for travel, street, wildlife, and casual portraiture. Its more modern sensor and connectivity options keep it relevant, despite its age.

Kodak EasyShare Z981 carves a niche for users prioritizing long zoom reach and a DSLR-style handling feel, with bright wide aperture lenses and simple manual controls. Yet, its hefty size, slower AF, and lower screen quality limit usability for advanced or fast-action photography.

If you want my two cents after testing thousands of cameras: I’d lean towards the Fujifilm F900EXR for generalist photography enthusiasts who value portability and speed - it’s the more compact, well-rounded package with fewer compromises.

Kodak’s Z981 might attract those who prize zoom extremes and don’t mind sacrificing responsiveness or low-light performance - maybe casual shooters focusing on still landscapes or non-action subjects.

Final Thoughts: The Real-Life Verdict

Of course, both these cameras are aging models now, and the market is flush with newer superzooms sporting bigger sensors (1") and more sophisticated AF and video capabilities.

But for bargain hunters or those interested in the small sensor compact zoom era, this Fujifilm-Kodak head-to-head highlights the critical trade-offs you’ll face - between size, autofocus speed, image quality, and zoom reach.

The truth? No superzoom is perfect. But when you find the one with the best balance for your style and needs, you unlock a remarkable photographic sidekick - ready to capture daily life’s wide-angle wonders and telephoto treasures alike.

Ready to add one to your gear bag? May your superzoom adventures be sharp, steady, and full of stellar shots.

Sample Images from Both Cameras

To round off this deep dive, here’s a gallery showing side-by-side comparisons illustrating the real-world image quality differences, color rendering, and zoom sharpness distinctions.

Fujifilm F900EXR front Fujifilm F900EXR screen back Kodak Z981 front Kodak Z981 screen back

With these insights, you can decide which model aligns with your photography goals - and skip the FOMO trap of tech specs alone. Happy shooting!