Fujifilm Z300 vs Panasonic FS42: An Ultracompact Face-Off from 2009

When it comes to the realm of ultracompact cameras, the late-2000s offered an interesting batch of pocket-sized shooters aiming to democratize photography without breaking the bank or complexity barrier. The Fujifilm FinePix Z300 and Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS42 - both announced in the first half of 2009 - are prime examples of this era’s attempt to cram respectable imaging chops into a slim, lightweight package.

Having spent hours testing both cameras side by side under varied conditions, I’m excited to unpack how these lightweight contenders compare in real-world use, dissect their technical merits, and guide today’s photography enthusiasts or even professionals who may appreciate these cameras for specific use cases or nostalgic curiosity.

First Impressions: Size, Build, and Handling

Holding the Fujifilm Z300 and Panasonic FS42 next to each other immediately reveals a familiar ultracompact dichotomy. Both are pocket-friendly, but the Panasonic FS42 earns a slight edge in slenderness, measuring 98 x 55 x 22 mm compared to the Z300’s 92 x 57 x19 mm, albeit a bit thicker. Both weigh in featherlight at around 155 g (Fujifilm) and 132 g (Panasonic), making them perfect carry-anywhere companions.

The Z300’s more polished, slab-like exterior feels a tad more solid, though neither boast any weather sealing or rugged protection. Neither camera offers a traditional viewfinder, relying solely on rear LCD screens for composition. The Fujifilm sports a slightly larger 3.0-inch touchscreen display, while the Panasonic’s is 2.5 inches with fixed, non-touch capability - a consideration if you favor tap-to-focus or menu navigation.

Despite their similar ultracompact ergonomics, the rear control layouts differ. The Fujifilm Z300 has touch-enabled controls, offering a streamlined interface albeit with limited manual input options (no aperture or shutter priority). Panasonic's FS42 sticks to buttons and dials, offering no touchscreen admittedly, but slightly quicker access to playback and shooting menus.

In sum: both cameras ooze portability, but neither feels like it could replace a DSLR or mirrorless body in terms of grip or tactile feedback. They’re designed for casual shooting rather than demanding professional sessions.

Sensor and Image Quality: CCDs Take the Stage

Let’s dive under the hood, beginning with sensor technology and image quality - a critical battleground for any camera.

Both cameras deploy 10MP CCD sensors, a common choice at the time for ultracompacts, with slightly differing physical sizes. The Fujifilm Z300's sensor measures 1/2.3-inch (6.17 x 4.55 mm), marginally larger than Panasonic FS42’s 1/2.5-inch sensor (5.74 x 4.31 mm). This translates to the Z300 having about 28.07 mm² of sensor area compared to FS42’s 24.74 mm² - a roughly 13% increase, which can have an impact on noise performance and dynamic range.

What does this mean practically? From my testing, the Fujifilm delivers cleaner images with less noise at higher ISOs (both cap out at ISO 1600 for Fujifilm and ISO 1000 native for Panasonic, although Panasonic can boost up to 6400 ISO). However, Panasonic’s boosted ISO images come with substantial noise - not ideal beyond ISO 400 or 800.

Color reproduction leans towards the warmer, more saturated hues in Fujifilm’s output. Fuji’s CCD sensor - and their color science - have a historical reputation for pleasing skin tones and vibrant colors, which I found holds true here. Panasonic images tend to be a bit cooler and less punchy by comparison.

Both cameras use an anti-aliasing filter to reduce moiré, which is sensible given the sensor resolution and lens designs aiming for general-purpose shooting rather than ultra-fine detail capture.

The maximum native image resolution is similar: 3648 x 2736 pixels, sufficient for casual prints up to 8x10 inches without obvious degradation. Neither supports RAW shooting, which is a bummer for professionals craving image flexibility; both are locked into JPEG output.

In short: Fujifilm edges out Panasonic slightly in sensor size and noise handling, while color rendering is subjective but leans towards Fujifilm’s richer palette.

Lens Specifications and Autofocus: Focal Length and Speed

Ultracompacts have fixed lenses, meaning their zoom range and maximum aperture define their versatility and low-light capability.

Fujifilm Z300 offers a 36-180 mm equivalent 5x optical zoom with an aperture of f/3.9-6.4 - a relatively narrow maximum aperture range especially when zoomed in. Panasonic’s FS42 sports a shorter zoom range, 33-132 mm equivalent (4x optical zoom), but notably brighter apertures of f/2.8-5.9.

From a practical standpoint, the Panasonic’s faster wide-end aperture (f/2.8) makes a difference for indoor or lower-light shooting, allowing more light to reach the sensor without cranking up ISO to noisy levels. The zoom range on Panasonic is less extensive, falling short on reach for distant subjects, but may encourage wider-angle usage.

Macro shooting capabilities differ too - the Panasonic FS42 can focus as close as 5 cm, compared to Fujifilm's 9 cm minimum focus distance. If you enjoy close-up or tabletop photography, the Panasonic may yield sharper detail in macros, with a bit more magnification flexibility.

When it comes to autofocus speed and accuracy, both rely on contrast-detection AF (no phase-detection), the standard in ultracompacts of the era. I mostly observed similar AF times - adequate for static subjects but sluggish for action or wildlife shots. Neither provides face detection or eye autofocus, a modern luxury absent in these models.

The Fujifilm Z300 features sensor-shift image stabilization, which did help a little with handheld shots at telephoto reach, reducing blur on slow shutter speeds in my tests. Panasonic lacks any image stabilization, making it less convenient for low shutter speed shooting.

Shooting Experience: Controls, Interface, and Displays

The rear screens are the primary composition interface here. Fujifilm’s Z300 features a 3.0-inch touchscreen LCD with 230k dots; Panasonic FS42 has a 2.5-inch display with the same resolution but no touch.

In daylight, both are moderately visible though not exceptional - typical of that period’s LCD technology, meaning in bright sun, framing sometimes demands shading the screen with a hand. The touchscreen on Fujifilm helps make menu navigation more fluid once you get used to it, offering tap-to-select and focus area selection, though limited autofocus modes restrict creative control.

Neither camera has an electronic viewfinder (EVF), and their designs confirm to the ultracompact “point and shoot” school, eschewing physical viewfinders for simplicity and size savings. Practically, this influences usability in bright sunlight and for longer viewing sessions - both can be challenging.

Menu systems in both cameras are straightforward but basic, with limited options for exposure adjustments. Neither offers aperture priority, shutter priority, or full manual modes, so exposure control is largely automatic - fine if you want a camera that ‘just works’ but frustrating for enthusiasts.

Burst Shooting, Shutter Speeds, and Video

Both cameras are not speed demons. Fujifilm Z300 offers a continuous shooting speed of 1 frame per second (fps), while Panasonic FS42 doubles that with 2 fps. In sports or wildlife situations, these speeds are pedestrian - perfectly fine for casual snaps but will miss fast action sequences.

Minimum and maximum shutter speeds also differ: Panasonic spans 60s to 1/2000s, granting long exposures that approach astrophotography territory, while Fujifilm has a more restricted 4s minimum to 1/1000s maximum. The longer shutter on Panasonic combined with respectable low ISO means better potential for night shooting or creative long exposures.

Video-wise, both max out at standard definition: Fujifilm tops at 640 x 480 pixels at 30 fps; Panasonic offers 848 x 480 at 30 fps, slightly wider but still benchmarked to early 2000s standard definition. Both use Motion JPEG - a format that is less efficient and lower quality than modern codecs like H.264 or 4K video.

No microphone or headphone ports appear on either, limiting audio adaptability. Neither provides advanced video functionality like continuous autofocus during recording or 4K, unsurprising for their class and age.

Portability and Battery Life: Travel-Friendly Considerations

Both cameras lack wireless connectivity - no Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or GPS - meaning image transfer involves physically plugging in via USB 2.0 or removing SD cards, which reflect their pre-smartphone era design.

Battery life specifics are sparse, but given their tiny lithium-ion batteries (Fujifilm uses NP-45; Panasonic unspecified), expect modest shot counts - typically around 200-300 shots per charge. Both use SD/SDHC cards with single slots, standard and reliable but limiting for heavy shooters.

The Panasonic’s smaller body and lighter weight translate to greater pocket friendliness. However, the Fujifilm’s touchscreen and slightly larger display may better suit travelers desiring quicker image review and control without extra gadgets.

Strengths and Weaknesses Summed Up

Let’s round up what each camera offers with pros and cons drawn from real use:

Real-World Photography Use Cases

It’s time to check how these cameras fit across different photographic disciplines - and whether they hold any practical relevance in 2024’s photography landscape.

Portrait Photography

For casual portraits, Fujifilm’s color science and larger sensor will render skin tones with more warmth and pleasing saturation. However, neither camera offers face detection or eye autofocus, making perfect focus on eyes a manual lottery.

The lens aperture limitation (especially at telephoto) hampers achieving creamy bokeh for background separation. Portraits tend to be sharp but flat due to tiny sensors and slower lenses. Panasonic’s faster lens wide open may aid indoor portraits more than Fujifilm's.

Landscape Photography

Landscape shooters prize wide angles, resolution, and dynamic range. Both cameras max out at 10MP JPEGs, with no RAW files, restricting post-processing.

Fujifilm’s larger sensor area may yield slightly better dynamic range in bright scenes, but expect limited latitude in shadows and highlights. Panasonic’s longer exposure abilities allow for creative night landscapes or light painting.

No weather sealing or ruggedness here - plan to protect these cameras carefully outdoors. Neither offers lens filters or ultra-wide angles, limiting compositional creativity.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Neither camera is truly suited for wildlife or sports. Slow autofocus, paltry burst rates (1-2 fps), and short zoom ranges curtail their effectiveness on moving subjects.

Fujifilm’s longer 5x zoom could reach further, but the sluggish AF and lack of tracking modes mean many shots will be missed or out of focus. Panasonic’s faster wide aperture helps in low light but lacks reach and stabilization.

Street Photography

Ultracompacts shine in street photography for their size and discretion. Here, Panasonic’s smaller dimensions and faster wide aperture provide leg-up in portability and low-light candid shooting.

Both cameras lack the black, stealthy styling street photographers prefer - more flashy silver or bright colors. Manual controls are practically nonexistent, meaning less flexibility on urban scenes with mixed lighting.

Macro Photography

Panasonic FS42 wins here with a minimum macro distance of 5 cm compared to Fujifilm’s 9 cm, allowing finer close-ups, particularly in well-lit conditions where autofocus can nail detail.

Neither offers focus stacking or manual focus override, though, so macro enthusiasts will feel limited.

Night and Astrophotography

Panasonic’s shutter speed range to 60 seconds is impressive for an ultracompact and offers creative night possibilities. Fujifilm caps at 4 seconds, restricting long exposure use.

Sensor noise at high ISO is a limiting factor for both, but Fujifilm’s marginally larger sensor helps produce cleaner images at ISO 800-1600.

Neither camera supports bulb mode or advanced astro features.

Video Capabilities

If casual video is your thing, both cameras offer standard definition Motion JPEG recording at 30 fps. Hardly impressive today, but functional for basic clips.

No stabilization on Panasonic hurts handheld video. Fujifilm’s sensor-shift IS helps a little. No audio ports or 4K options exclude these from serious video work.

Travel Photography

Both cameras score high on portability and battery weight, great for travelers who want snapshots without the bulk. The Fujifilm’s touchscreen promotes faster image review and settings tweaks, but the Panasonic’s longer shutter and faster lens provide more shooting flexibility.

Neither supports wireless sharing - something modern travelers might miss - so plan to carry cables or card readers to offload images.

Professional Workflows

Professionals will balk at missing RAW support, limited manual controls, and lack of tethering or wireless connectivity. Neither camera offers advanced color profiles or reliable AF systems needed for critical work.

These are strictly casual companions or secondary cameras for pros needing something pocketable with decent image quality.

Fujifilm Z300 front Fujifilm Z300 screen back Panasonic FS42 front Panasonic FS42 screen back

Technical Masterclass: Behind the Scenes of Testing

Over my years testing cameras, I’ve found that sensor size and lens aperture combinations dictate much of the practical versatility in these ultracompacts. Contrast-detection autofocus, as used here, typically lags phase detection for speed, particularly in low-contrast or fast-moving scenes.

Both cameras represent the quintessential “point-and-shoot” philosophy, sacrificing manual input and advanced features for simplicity, pocketability, and price.

I assessed image quality by shooting identical scenes under controlled lighting, varying ISO and aperture (where auto-selected) to check noise, color, and sharpness. Burst modes were tested with moving subjects to observe tracking and frame timing. Video clips were recorded handheld to gauge stabilization, exposure adaptability, and audio quality.

Battery endurance was estimated from manufacturer data and real test shooting cycles with screen-on and image review active.

Neither camera is a powerhouse, but for their size and class at launch, both delivered solid performance in typical snapshot scenarios.

How These Cameras Stack Up in Different Genres

To summarize genre-specific suitability through a pragmatic lens:

• Portraits: Slight edge to Fujifilm for skin tone and sensor size but no AF enhancements.
• Landscape: Fujifilm’s sensor and color favor static scenes; Panasonic’s longer shutter offers night opportunities.
• Wildlife/Sports: Neither suitable; slow AF and frame rates hamper success.
• Street: Panasonic’s size and aperture lend more to discretion and dim light.
• Macro: Panasonic holds the advantage for minimum focusing distance.
• Night/Astro: Panasonic’s longer shutter speeds prevail.
• Video: Both limited to SD quality; Fujifilm's IS slightly helps handheld.
• Travel: Both compact; Fujifilm’s screen and Panasonic’s shutter range offer different benefits.
• Professional: Neither camera meets standards for critical imaging work.

Final Verdict: Which One Fits Your Photography Lifestyle?

Taken as relics from a prior decade, the Fujifilm FinePix Z300 and Panasonic Lumix FS42 are humble offerings of their time, yet they retain unique charms.

Choose the Fujifilm Z300 if you want a larger, touch-friendly screen, more sensor surface for marginally better image quality, and image stabilization to help steady shaky hands at longer zooms. It’s your best bet for portraits and daylight shooting with more pleasing colors.

Opt for the Panasonic FS42 if low-light shooting, macro capabilities, and longer shutter speeds excite your creative impulses. Its faster lens at the wide end and ability to reach 60-second exposures unlock some fun night photography options, and it remains slightly smaller and lighter.

Neither camera will satisfy professionals or enthusiasts demanding manual control, fast AF, or versatility in video. Still, as inexpensive and compact digital cameras primarily for snapshots, travel memories, and casual street shots - they do the job. Plus, for collectors or those seeking a simple “pocket camera” from the pre-smartphone era, you won’t go far wrong with either.

If you're wondering whether to invest new money in these models today - the answer is no; modern smartphones, mirrorless compacts, or even budget point-and-shoot cameras offer vastly superior imagery and features. But sometimes, appreciating their place in camera evolution adds depth to your photographic journey.

I hope this deep dive helps you navigate the subtleties between these two ultracompact classics. Got questions or experiences with these cameras? Drop a comment - I love hearing real-world stories!

Happy shooting, whatever camera you choose.