Bridging the Gap: A Hands-On Comparison of the Fujifilm SL240 and Sony Cyber-shot H200 Superzooms

In my 15+ years of working with cameras across the spectrum - from the full-frame titans to nimble compacts - it’s rare I get to dig into two similarly positioned bridge cameras side-by-side. The Fujifilm FinePix SL240 and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H200 are quintessential small sensor superzooms, catering to enthusiasts craving the convenience of a huge zoom range in a single package without the complexity or cost of interchangeable lens systems.

Both models hit the market just over a decade ago - 2012 for the Fujifilm SL240 and early 2013 for the Sony H200, and while their specs might feel nostalgic in today’s mirrorless-dominated hardware landscape, within their category they offer a fascinating contrast in design philosophy and practical usability. Over weeks of real-world testing - covering everything from portrait and travel photography to wildlife spotting and nighttime shots - I've come to appreciate how these cameras stack up for different user needs.

So, let me walk you through the nuances and help determine which of these superzooms, despite their modest 1/2.3” CCD sensors, might still earn a place in your bag.

Getting a Feel for the Cameras: Size, Ergonomics, and Controls

First impressions matter, especially when handling these cameras all day. The Fujifilm SL240 and Sony H200 both mirror SLR-style bridge designs - chunky, heftier than point-and-shoots but lighter and less intimidating than actual DSLRs.

Measuring roughly 122x93x100 mm and weighing in at 510g, the Fujifilm SL240 feels reasonably balanced in hand. Its grip is prominent enough, and the slightly taller build offers a solid hold for all-day shooting. Meanwhile, the Sony H200 is a bit wider but less deep (123x83x87 mm), with a marginally heavier 530g weight, partly due to its AA batteries rather than the Fujifilm’s dedicated rechargeable pack.

From my experience, the SL240’s dedicated battery pack (NP-85) lent longer shooting sessions without constant swapping, though at the expense of needing specific replacements. The Sony’s reliance on AA batteries is a double-edged sword - convenient for travel where you can grab alkalines anywhere, but somewhat bulkier and heavier in the hand.

Turning both cameras over, control placement accentuates their differing philosophies. Fujifilm offers a classic button and dial layout with manual, aperture, and shutter priority modes, catering to those wanting more exposure control. Sony’s H200 is more straightforward, lacking manual modes or exposure compensation - more beginner-friendly but limited in creative control.

I appreciated the Fujifilm’s tactile feedback, especially its dedicated exposure dial and quick access to bracketing and flash modes - features incredibly useful when shooting tricky lighting or experimenting with exposure. The Sony, conversely, keeps things simple but sometimes left me fumbling for settings buried in menus.

The Heart of the Machine: Sensor and Image Quality

At the core of any camera is its sensor, and here both use a small 1/2.3” CCD sensor sized at 6.17x4.55 mm, translating to roughly 28.07 mm² in surface area.

The Fujifilm SL240 provides 14 megapixels of resolution, topping out at 4288x3216 images, while the Sony H200 edges ahead with 20 megapixels at 5184x2920 pixels. That extra resolution does sound tempting on paper, yet I found it a subtle compromise because of the smaller pixel size burdening noise performance and dynamic range on the Sony.

Shooting raw files is off the table for both - neither supports RAW - so in-camera JPEG processing quality becomes paramount. The CCD sensor’s signature tends toward a more pleasant color rendition with slightly warmer, natural skin tones on the Fujifilm, which stood out in portrait sessions.

I tested them outdoors across sunny and shaded scenarios, and while Sony’s images are undeniably sharper at the pixel level - and able to resolve finer detail - the Fujifilm’s images maintain cleaner gradation and smoother tonal transitions, especially in foliage and sky.

For landscapes demanding richer dynamic range - the ability to preserve highlights and shadows - the Fujifilm again had a slight edge. However, under tricky backlighting, like sunrise or sunset shots, neither camera brilliantly retained subtle details due to sensor limitations and lack of highlight recovery controls.

Viewing and Composing Your Shot: Screens & Viewfinders

When framing photos, an artist’s interface is essential. Both models feature 3-inch fixed LCDs with 460k-dot resolution, but differences here are impactful.

Fujifilm uses a standard TFT LCD, offering decent daylight visibility though not excellent for bright outdoor use. Conversely, Sony’s ‘ClearPhoto’ LCD technology provides slightly better contrast and improved reflections handling, making composition easier on sunny days.

Notably, the Fujifilm SL240 includes an electronic viewfinder (EVF) with approximately 97% coverage - helpful for eye-level shooting and conserving battery. The Sony H200 lacks any kind of EVF, forcing reliance on the LCD in all lighting, which can feel awkward in bright conditions or for longer shooting bouts.

From practical use on a sunny mountain trail and a busy street market, I found the Fujifilm’s EVF indispensable for keeping composition steady and detailed. The Sony’s LCD, while adequate, necessitated shading your hand or jacket to view the screen comfortably.

Autofocus Performance: Precision and Speed in Action

Sharp focus is critical, especially when shooting moving subjects like wildlife or sports. Both cameras rely on contrast-detection autofocus with face detection but lack phase-detection systems, which limits speed and tracking ability.

The Fujifilm SL240 offers face detection and continuous autofocus tracking but without specialized animal or eye-detection autofocus modes. Similarly, the Sony H200 supports face-detection and continuous AF but has no advanced tracking either.

One significant difference surfaced when testing burst mode: Fujifilm could only manage a low 1 fps continuous shooting rate - too slow for fast-action scenes - while Sony’s H200 impressively sat at 8 fps in continuous shooting mode, making it more responsive to capture fleeting moments.

However, the Sony’s autofocus in continuous mode struggled to maintain sharpness during rapid subject movement, often hunting for focus or missing small details. The Fujifilm’s slower but more deliberate autofocus was surprisingly more reliable locking on static or moderately moving targets.

In my wildlife outings photographing birds and squirrels, I preferred careful manual focusing or single-shot AF on both, given the limitation of contrast-only AF and no dedicated tracking.

Zoom Range and Macro Capabilities: Getting Close and Far

Superzoom cameras are all about versatility, and these two shine with their massive fixed lenses. The Fujifilm’s 24x zoom covers 24-576 mm equivalent, while the Sony H200 boasts a 26.4x zoom pushing 24-633 mm equivalent.

Both have the same aperture range, starting at f/3.1 wide and closing to f/5.9 telephoto. This means low-light telephoto shots will necessarily be challenging across the board.

For macro capability, Fujifilm’s lens supports focusing as close as 2 cm, a boon for extreme close-ups that capture fine details, insects, or flowers. The Sony’s 20 cm minimum focusing distance is much less flexible for this purpose.

I found the Fujifilm’s sensor-shift image stabilization paired with its long zoom especially effective in handheld macro situations, enabling tack-sharp close-ups without a tripod. The Sony’s optical stabilization also helped reduce shake but felt less responsive at extreme close distances.

In practical scenarios - whether urban street flowers or forest details - the Fujifilm is the better choice if macro is a priority.

Flash Systems and Low-Light Adaptability

Each camera integrates a built-in flash with similar but subtly different capabilities. The Fujifilm SL240’s flash reaches up to 7 meters on wide end and about 3.6 meters telephoto, with modes including Auto, On, Off, Red-eye reduction, and Slow Sync, plus external flash compatibility.

Sony’s flash is rated slightly shorter range (6.8 meters), and while it offers Slow Sync and Advanced Flash modes for creative lighting, it does not support external flashes.

I found the Fujifilm’s external flash support useful for more complex lighting setups at events or indoor portraits, although the lack of a hot shoe on the Sony restricts such options.

Regarding ISO performance, both cameras have limited sensitivity ranges: Fujifilm’s max native ISO is 1600 (boostable to 6400), while Sony goes up to 3200 max native ISO. Noise levels rise quickly at higher ISOs, with both cameras showing grainy, mushy details in low-light.

Their CCD sensors, common in that era, lack the noise management found in current CMOS technology. Thus, for dimly lit environments or night photography, I wouldn’t recommend either for demanding image quality.

Video Capabilities: HD Recording Without Bells and Whistles

Both cameras record 720p HD video at 30 fps - the Fujifilm using H.264 and Motion JPEG codecs, Sony offering MPEG-4 and AVCHD formats. Neither supports 1080p or 4K video, which feels dated by modern standards.

Neither camera has microphone or headphone jacks, limiting audio control. Neither offers touchscreen focus control or advanced video stabilization modes.

Practically, video results were acceptable for casual clips but lacked the crispness and low-light handling that hobbyist videographers might seek. Slow autofocus during recording was noticeable on both cameras.

If video is a significant consideration, modern mirrorless or even smartphones will clearly outpace these two, but for occasional slideshow clips or family moments, their simplicity suffices.

Battery Life and Storage Flexibility

Battery life is an underrated but critical usability factor. The Fujifilm SL240’s NP-85 lithium-ion battery delivers approximately 300 shots per charge under standard conditions. The Sony H200, with its four AA batteries, typically lasted around 240 shots.

While the Fujifilm’s rechargeable pack weighed less and streamlined travel, the Sony’s AA battery choice allowed quick in-field swaps or use of rechargeable NiMH batteries for cost efficiency.

Both cameras rely on single SD card slots, compatible with SD, SDHC, and SDXC formats, with the Sony offering additional compatibility for Sony proprietary Memory Stick formats. This broader support is a minor plus for users already invested in Sony media.

Build Quality and Weather Resistance: Practical Durability

Neither camera features weather sealing, dustproofing, shockproofing, or freezeproofing. Construction is largely plastic with decent ergonomic build but not rugged.

I took both into damp forest hikes and brisk outdoor markets, taking care to shield from rain or dust. For casual use, they are sturdy enough but not instruments for harsh environmental conditions.

Lens Ecosystem – Locked In, But Versatile

Being bridge cameras, their lenses are fixed and cannot be swapped. That means no options to upgrade to premium glass or specialty lenses without buying an altogether different system.

That said, their huge zoom ranges from wide-angle to super-telephoto make them unmistakably versatile in a pinch, especially when traveling light or needing a single camera choice.

If you crave adaptability or plan serious work in portraits or landscapes where prime lenses outperform superzooms, these cameras will feel limiting.

Real-World Image Gallery and Analysis

I put both models to the test in multiple settings to showcase their strengths and weaknesses.

Fujifilm SL240 front Fujifilm SL240 screen back Sony H200 front Sony H200 screen back

In portrait shots, the Fujifilm exhibited more pleasing skin tones with restrained saturation; its sensor rendered subtle gradations nicely despite modest bokeh effects due to narrow apertures. The Sony’s higher resolution could capture more texture, but sometimes harsh contrast overshot softer highlights.

Landscapes benefited from the Fujifilm’s dynamic range handling in mid-ISO settings. Sony’s images were sharp but occasionally exhibited noisier shadow areas.

Zip over to fast-action scenes and the Sony’s 8 fps burst rushed through frames but struggled with reliable autofocus. The Fujifilm’s sluggish 1 fps burst limited sequences but maintained consistent focus on subject.

For macro and close-up photography, the Fujifilm’s 2 cm minimum focus distance yielded more intimate results compared to the Sony.

Photography Genre Performance Breakdown

As always, performance depends on your intended use. Here's how each camera stands up across popular photography genres, based on my extensive testing:

Overall Performance and Value Assessment

When scoring these cameras holistically, I consider image quality, usability, speed, feature set, and price.

The Fujifilm SL240 shines with better manual controls, improved exposure handling, closer macro focus, and a handy EVF. However, its slow continuous shooting and modest burst speed constrain fast-action photography.

Sony’s H200 is compelling for those craving a lightning-fast burst rate and a teensier zoom advantage, but sacrifices manual shooting options, and the lack of viewfinder hampers usability outdoors.

Price-wise, both hover under $300 new at launch, making them accessible options for budget-minded hobbyists or those upgrading from compacts.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

After putting both cameras through their paces in diverse scenarios, I see distinct use cases suited to each.

• Choose the Fujifilm SL240 if…

  • You value manual exposure control and want to experiment beyond point-and-shoot auto modes.
  • Macro photography is a priority, needing extremely close focus.
  • You frequently shoot portraits and landscapes, where pleasing skin tones and better dynamic range matter.
  • You want the optical viewfinder for composing in bright environments.
  • You prefer rechargeables and longer battery life.

• Choose the Sony Cyber-shot H200 if…

  • You shoot a lot of fast action or sports scenes requiring high-speed burst mode.
  • You want slightly longer zoom reach in telephoto range.
  • Your budget or preference favors AA batteries (e.g., for travel convenience).
  • You’re comfortable with auto-exposure modes and want simplest point-and-shoot ease.
  • You appreciate having multiple storage format options to match existing memory cards.

Neither model is a powerhouse for professional-quality work by today’s standards, particularly with the small sensor size and limited ISO capabilities. For casual photographers, beginners, or secondary travel cameras, however, these superzooms remain charming and flexible tools.

I encourage enthusiasts to consider these cameras as bridges - both technically and stylistically - between compact simplicity and DSLR control. They offer a fascinating snapshot of an era just before mirrorless revolutionized the industry.

My Testing Methodology

I evaluated both cameras under consistent lighting and shooting conditions, across multiple shooting disciplines. By combining lab testing for resolution and ISO noise with real outdoor sessions capturing portraits, landscapes, and wildlife, I measured practical image quality and usability. Burst rates were measured with continuous moving subjects. Battery endurance was noted for typical usage patterns. While neither supports raw, I reviewed JPEG outputs for color fidelity and dynamic range challenges.

Throughout, I emphasized honest, hands-on observation rather than spec sheet comparison alone to provide useful, actionable information for buyers.

Photography is about capturing moments with joy and creativity - tools are just the means. With this detailed comparison, I hope you find the perfect fit for your photographic journey, whether it’s the Fujifilm SL240’s classic manual-friendly charm or the Sony H200’s rapid-fire simplicity.

Happy shooting!