FujiFilm S8400W vs Ricoh GR III: A Deep Dive into Two Distinct Camera Worlds

As someone who has tested thousands of cameras across genres and technical challenges, I’m no stranger to the diversity within the camera market. Today, I’m excited to share a hands-on comparison between two very different beasts: the FujiFilm S8400W - an ambitious superzoom bridge camera introduced in 2013 - and the 2018 Ricoh GR III, a revered large-sensor compact camera aimed at street and travel photographers.

While these cameras belong to different eras and categories, each offers unique value propositions that have intrigued photographers for distinct reasons. My goal here is to move beyond spec sheets and press releases and reveal how these two cameras perform in real-world use - across portraiture, landscapes, wildlife, urban exploration, macro work, and even video - to help you find the best fit for your creative intentions.

Let’s unpack their core differences first with a look at their designs and builds.

First Impressions: Size, Build, and Handling

When I hold both cameras side by side, the contrast is striking. The FujiFilm S8400W is a classic bridge camera with an SLR-like bulk; the Ricoh GR III exudes minimalist elegance as a compact powerhouse. Here’s a clear size and ergonomics comparison that highlights these differences:

The S8400W measures 123 x 87 x 116 mm and weighs roughly 670g, housed in a plastic but solid-feeling body with a deep grip. This size is dictated largely by its long zoom lens, providing a practical grip for extended reach. In comparison, the Ricoh GR III is pocket-friendly at 109 x 62 x 33 mm and under 260g, designed for stealthy street photography and travel.

Turning them over, the control layouts tell a story too:

The FujiFilm uses large, physical dials and switches found in bridge cameras: easy to manipulate without looking, suitable for rapid mode changes during action photography or wildlife shooting. The Ricoh opts for a minimalist control scheme, focusing on simplicity and touchscreen interaction - a compromise some users welcome for faster menu navigation, others find less tactile than dedicated dials.

Ergonomics wise, I found the FujiFilm offers better handling for longer shoots due to its pronounced grip and larger buttons, but it’s bulkier to carry around daily. The Ricoh’s compactness makes it more discreet and travel-friendly, though the smaller buttons require a learning curve to master, especially under pressure.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of Capture

Sensor size is arguably the most critical factor in image quality, and here we see a fundamental divergence:

The Ricoh GR III shoots with an APS-C sensor (23.5x15.6mm) boasting 24 megapixels, significantly larger than the FujiFilm's 1/2.3" BSI CMOS sensor at 16 megapixels - roughly a 13-fold difference in sensor area.

This difference manifests in instantly noticeable ways: dynamic range, noise handling, color depth, and detail resolution all favor the Ricoh. For example, the GR III’s lack of an anti-aliasing filter further sharpens detail, making it excellent for fine textures - a crucial advantage for landscapes and portraits where subtle gradations matter.

In my tests, the Fujifilm struggled in low light as expected for a small sensor, introducing noise and softer images at higher ISO - particularly beyond ISO 800. Its optical image stabilization helped stabilize shots somewhat but couldn’t fully compensate for sensor limitations. The Ricoh, on the other hand, maintained clean output even up to ISO 3200, a boon for night photography and indoor portraits with available light.

Neither camera can match the resolution or color fidelity of modern full-frame cameras, but within their classes, the Ricoh GR III decisively wins on image quality and creative control.

Focusing Systems: Precision vs. Reach

Neither camera heavily prioritizes autofocus sophistication, but their approaches contrast sharply.

The FujiFilm S8400W uses contrast-detection with unspecified focus points, including single, center, and multi-area modes, but lacks face and eye detection. It can track subjects in continuous mode but isn’t speedy or precise by today’s standards, particularly evident in wildlife and sports scenarios where quick reflexes are essential.

In contrast, the Ricoh GR III employs a hybrid AF system, combining phase-detection points with contrast detection, plus face-detection capabilities. The system is fast and accurate within its limited frame coverage. Ricoh’s added touch-activated AF aids macro and selective focus, a major usability plus.

For portraits, the Ricoh’s face detection yields consistently sharp eyes and pleasant depth of field control. The FujiFilm’s longer zoom theoretically allows distant focusing, but the AF speed and accuracy limitations reduce practical effectiveness, especially for moving subjects.

Stretching the Lens: Zoom Versus Prime

The FujiFilm’s headline is its monstrous 24–1056mm equivalent 44× zoom, starting bright at f/2.9 and narrowing to f/6.5 at the telephoto end - a truly versatile reach for everything from wide scenes to distant wildlife.

On the other hand, the Ricoh GR III sports a fixed, sharp 28mm equivalent prime lens with a fast f/2.8 aperture, optimizing image quality and offering a natural field of view ideal for street and environmental portraits.

This lens strategy impacts creative possibilities dramatically:

• FujiFilm S8400W: Your travel companion when you want one camera to handle a wide range of subjects, from macro flowers starting at 1 cm–distance to wildlife far off in the distance. The lens’s optical stabilization is vital here to maintain sharpness at extreme zoom. However, the variable maximum aperture means low light at long zoom can be challenging.

• Ricoh GR III: The prime lens encourages a disciplined approach, inviting you to “zoom with your feet.” Its bright aperture captures pleasing background blur (bokeh), critical for portraits and isolating subjects in street or travel settings. Its macro focusing from 6 cm adds versatility for detailed close-ups.

In practical terms, if your photography needs demand extreme reach - think capturing birds or distant sports - the FujiFilm is unmatched. But if you prioritize ultimate image fidelity and compositional control, especially for close-in work and atmospheric imagery, the Ricoh delivers in spades.

The User Interface and Viewing Experience

Both cameras feature 3-inch LCD screens, but differences in resolution and touch capabilities affect usability:

The Ricoh’s high-resolution 1037k-dot touchscreen provides sharp previews and intuitive touch focusing, a real asset for fast-paced shooting. I found navigating menus straightforward, and the touch interface quickened the learning curve for customizing settings.

FujiFilm’s fixed, lower-resolution 460k-dot screen is less sharp, making it harder to judge focus and exposure on-site. It also lacks touchscreen input, increasing reliance on physical buttons. The electronic viewfinder - while helpful - has a low resolution of 201k dots and covers only 97% of the frame, which can occasionally feel limiting.

Street photographers often prefer no viewfinder or an optical one for natural framing, so Ricoh’s optional viewfinder accessory adds flexibility. For wildlife or telephoto-heavy work, FujiFilm’s EVF, despite modest specs, remains a practical framing tool.

Autofocus in Action: Real-World Shooting

In daylight portrait sessions with friends, I noticed the Ricoh GR III locked onto eyes with reliable accuracy and could subtly separate the subject from backgrounds, thanks to wider aperture and sensor depth. Its face-detection prevented frustrating misses common to contrast AF systems.

By contrast, the FujiFilm occasionally hunted slightly, especially in variable light or on moving subjects, telling me its contrast detection AF is more challenged by the small sensor and long zoom lens.

For wildlife and sports testing, FujiFilm’s 10 frames per second continuous shooting mode aimed to capitalize on fast bursts, but buffer limitations and AF lagged. The Ricoh lacks continuous burst specs advertised but maintains competent AF speeds for candid captures.

Shooting Versatility Across Genres

To bring this from lab to landscape, here’s how my experiences with both cameras translated into various photography disciplines:

Portraiture: Capturing Souls with Subtlety

Ricoh’s APS-C sensor and prime lens combine to render natural skin tones with smooth tonal transitions - a satisfying foundation for portraits. The camera’s face detection and precise AF further enhance sharp eyes and detail.

The FujiFilm’s zoom lets you capture a variety of framing options but falls short on background blur quality and skin tone nuance due to sensor constraints. It can do portraits in a pinch, especially when distance or versatility matters, but won’t match the Ricoh’s finesse.

Landscape: Dynamic Range and Resolution Matter

The Ricoh’s larger sensor and 24MP resolution enable capturing fine details in landscapes, cloud textures, and intricate shadows. Though it lacks weather sealing, careful travel in good conditions yields stunning results.

FujiFilm’s superzoom allows framing remote mountain peaks or zooming into coastal rock patterns without changing lenses, but image softness and noise creep in with larger crops. No environmental sealing restricts rugged outdoor usage.

Wildlife and Sports: Speed versus Reach

The FujiFilm’s massive zoom and 10 fps burst theoretically suit action capture, yet AF lag and small sensor limit crisp results. It’s a “bring it and hope” rather than precision tool for fast wildlife.

Ricoh’s limited focal length and slower burst make it less practical here.

Street Photography: Discretion and Speed

Ricoh’s compact size and silent shutter make it a street photographer’s dream - I blended into crowds effortlessly and captured spontaneous moments. Touch AF and face detection further improved confidence.

FujiFilm’s bulk and zoom length deter street usage, feeling conspicuous and slow.

Macro: Close-Up Worlds

Both cameras offer macro capabilities: FujiFilm impressive with 1 cm focusing distance, and Ricoh respectable at 6 cm. However, Ricoh’s sensor-shift stabilization assists handheld macro shots, which FujiFilm lacks at the sensor level.

Night and Astro: Handling Darkness

Ricoh’s low noise at high ISO and sensor-shift stabilization edge it as a lightweight night shooter. FujiFilm struggles beyond ISO 800, compounded by its slower lens apertures at longer zoom.

Video Capabilities

Both cameras shoot 1080p video but differ:

• FujiFilm can record Full HD at 60 fps and offers slow-motion modes up to 480 fps at lower resolutions, catering to creative enthusiasts.
• Ricoh supports Full HD at 60p but lacks higher frame rate modes or in-body mic/headphone jacks, limiting pro video workflows.

Neither includes 4K or advanced video features. FujiFilm’s HDMI port facilitates external recording; Ricoh lacks it.

Power and Connectivity

The FujiFilm’s use of AA batteries offers convenience in remote areas but limits battery life and adds weight. It manages approximately 300 shots per charge equivalent. The Ricoh GR III uses a proprietary battery (rated around 200 shots), weighs less, and supports USB charging - advantageous for travel.

Both include built-in Wi-Fi; Ricoh adds touchscreen Wi-Fi configuration, streamlining image transfer. Neither has Bluetooth or GPS, limiting geotagging ease.

Storage, File Formats, and Workflow

Ricoh offers RAW capture and supports dual aspect ratios (1:1 and 3:2), vital for post-processing flexibility in professional workflows. FujiFilm lacks RAW, limiting post-edit latitude and hindering professional use.

Both accept SD cards, with Ricoh supporting faster UHS-I standards for quicker buffer writes.

Price and Value Analysis

At launch, FujiFilm S8400W retailed near $300, making it an affordable superzoom for consumers seeking one-camera convenience. The bulky body and limited sensor technology reflect its budget nature.

Ricoh GR III entered at around $900, reflecting high-end compact demands with premium sensor, lens, and build quality.

Value depends heavily on use case: FujiFilm is a cost-effective superzoom option, while Ricoh targets enthusiasts desiring professional-level results in a compact form.

Side-By-Side in Performance Ratings

For a clear perspective, here’s an overall performance rating I derived from testing:

The Ricoh GR III leads in image quality, handling, and versatility, while FujiFilm’s strengths reside in zoom capability and continuous shooting ease.

Discipline-Specific Scores

To help visualize which camera excels per genre:

Ricoh dominates street, portrait, landscape, and travel. FujiFilm has a niche for wildlife and sports owing to zoom and burst.

Photo Gallery: Real-World Samples

Here are some direct image comparisons in good light:

Fujifilm S8400W front Fujifilm S8400W screen back Ricoh GR III front Ricoh GR III screen back

Notice Ricoh’s sharper detail and cleaner backgrounds despite fixed 28mm lens; FujiFilm’s zoomed images are versatile but slightly softer with more noise.

My Testing Methodology and Final Thoughts

I conducted side-by-side shooting tests in diverse environments varying from urban streets to wildlife reserves, checking autofocus repeatability, burst accuracy, low light noise, and color fidelity. I also measured ergonomics during extended handheld use and reviewed video functions in controlled settings.

Both cameras have merits. The FujiFilm S8400W is surprisingly flexible given its price and zoom range but is hindered by a dated sensor and no RAW output. The Ricoh GR III remains a compact gem, ideal for enthusiasts seeking professional image quality in a minimalist package.

Who Should Buy the FujiFilm S8400W?

• Photographers on a budget needing extreme zoom without changing lenses.
• Casual wildlife or sports enthusiasts capturing distant action.
• Users valuing AA battery convenience in remote locations.
• Those prioritizing physical controls and a substantial grip over compactness.

Who Should Invest in the Ricoh GR III?

• Enthusiasts and professionals requiring high image quality in a pocketable form.
• Street, travel, and landscape photographers valuing discretion and sharpness.
• Users wanting RAW capture with face-detection and sensor-shift stabilization.
• Those who prefer a prime lens and tactile touchscreen interface.

Closing Advice

When choosing between these two, be honest about your priorities: Do you want versatility and reach or top-tier image quality in a compact body? Neither can replace a DSLR or mirrorless if you require ultimate speed and resolution, but both fulfill niche roles admirably.

I hope this thorough, hands-on comparison sheds light on your decision process with clear insights rooted in my professional testing experience.

Safe shooting and may your next camera deliver not just pixels, but moments frozen in time perfectly!

Disclosure: I have no current sponsorship or affiliate ties to either brand; this review is based on independent testing and personal evaluation.

For more in-depth camera reviews and photo essays, feel free to contact me or explore my portfolio.