Fujifilm S9800 vs Pentax XG-1: A Technical Comparison of Two Small Sensor Superzoom Cameras

When approaching the market for small sensor superzoom bridge cameras, two models often surface in conversations, especially among enthusiasts balancing reach with budget - all while prioritizing practical versatility. The 2015-announced Fujifilm S9800 and the slightly older Pentax XG-1 (2014) each serve as accessible “travel zoom” options featuring extensive zoom ranges and DSLR-style ergonomics. Despite their similar categories, these models differ in critical operational and technical dimensions that profoundly impact photographic outcomes and user experience.

Having rigorously tested both cameras through a variety of photographic disciplines - leveraging hands-on evaluations, sensor technicalities, autofocus responsiveness, and image quality assessments - I present here a comprehensive comparative analysis. This aims to guide photography enthusiasts and professionals in making well-informed, nuanced decisions free from manufacturer spin or uninformed hype.

First Impressions: Size, Weight, and Ergonomics

Both cameras adopt an SLR-like (bridge) form factor with substantial manual control options uncommon for compact superzooms - a nod to users seeking greater creative influence.

The S9800 is taller and notably bulkier - most likely due to its longer zoom barrel and battery choice - resulting in higher hand fatigue during prolonged handheld use. The XG-1 is slightly more compact with better balance despite facilitating an even greater 52× zoom range.

Ergonomically, the S9800’s pronounced grip and textured surface provide a sturdy hold, beneficial when operating at maximum telephoto where stability is paramount. In contrast, the XG-1’s more streamlined body and weight advantage enhance portability, making it slightly better suited for travel and casual street shooting.

Camera Controls and Interface Design

Hands-on usability hinges heavily on control layout and screen/viewfinder efficacy, particularly in bridge cameras where photographers often require quick access to exposure settings and zoom.

Both models lack touchscreen capability but differ in electronic viewfinder (EVF) specs and top-plate controls.

• Fujifilm S9800 offers a higher resolution EVF at 920k dots and 97% coverage, affording more precise framing, vital in wildlife or sports telephoto scenarios.

• Pentax XG-1 features a lower resolution EVF (200k dots) without specified coverage data, limiting its utility under challenging light or for critical manual focus tasks.

The S9800’s top dials and buttons are more intuitively labeled, supporting quicker manual exposure adjustments (aperture/shutter priority and manual modes) without menu diving. The XG-1 offers these modes as well but with less immediate tactile feedback due to more generic controls.

On the rear, both feature 3-inch fixed LCDs with matching 460k-dot resolutions but vary slightly in usability and angle stability.

The S9800’s LCD shows a slightly warmer color response and better anti-reflective properties, optimizing outdoor use. Contrast this with the XG-1’s more utilitarian screen that, while competent, suffers more reflection interference under strong sunlight.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality Potential

At the heart of any camera is its sensor. Both units utilize a 1/2.3-inch CMOS sensor measuring 6.17 x 4.55mm with a sensor area of approximately 28.07 mm² and 16MP resolution (4608×3456 pixels). However, there are critical discrepancies in sensor design and maximum ISO handling that influence image fidelity, especially in low light.

• Fujifilm S9800 employs a conventional CMOS sensor with an antialiasing filter (to reduce moiré), supporting ISO 100 – 12800 with a native base sensitivity of ISO 100.

• Pentax XG-1 features a BSI-CMOS sensor of the same physical size but with a maximum native ISO ceiling at 3200, arguably indicating conservatism in noise management at higher sensitivity settings.

The inclusion of a back-illuminated sensor on the XG-1 theoretically improves low-light photon collection efficiency, but in practice, this advantage is tempered by the camera’s older image processing engine and JPEG-only capture without RAW support.

Neither camera supports RAW files, limiting post-processing latitude significantly - an important consideration for professionals or enthusiasts prioritizing rigorous editing workflows.

Lens Ranges, Aperture, and Optical Performance

Zoom reach is a key buying factor in bridge cameras; the Fujifilm S9800 and Pentax XG-1 push extraordinarily long zoom ranges:

The Fujifilm’s slightly narrower maximum aperture at the telephoto end (f/6.5 versus Pentax’s f/5.6) can disadvantage it in low light or wildlife applications requiring faster shutter speeds. However, the 0.2mm difference at wide-angle apertures is negligible.

The Pentax boasts a closer macro focusing distance (1 cm) compared to the Fujifilm's 7 cm, substantively enhancing close-up and detail work for macro photography enthusiasts.

The S9800 incorporates optical image stabilization via the lens, whereas the XG-1 uses sensor-shift stabilization. Optical stabilization is generally more effective at longer focal lengths, improving stability for telephoto wildlife and sports shots.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed

Autofocus capability and drive speed are significant determinants of efficacy in wildlife, sports, and candid photography.

The S9800’s more advanced AF implementation offers face detection and tracking, improving acquisition reliability on moving subjects and human subjects during portraiture.

The Pentax XG-1 lacks autofocus continuous modes and face detection entirely, limiting its utility for dynamic subjects like sports or wildlife. Manual focus is available and even required for precise work, which presents challenges under fast-changing conditions.

The bursting speed difference is marginal (10 fps vs 9 fps), but the S9800’s more sophisticated AF system better leverages this speed in practical shooting.

Exposure Control and Metering

Both cameras provide exposure compensation and a range of metering modes but diverge on bracketing and white balance flexibility.

• Fujifilm S9800 supports auto exposure bracketing (AEB) and white balance bracketing (WBB), invaluable facilities for landscape HDR and challenging lighting.

• Pentax XG-1 omits all bracketing functions.

Metering types vary as well: the S9800 offers multi-segment, average, and spot metering while the XG-1’s metering is more simplistic, excluding multi-segment and spot modes.

These distinctions reinforce the S9800’s positioning as a more versatile tool for critical exposure environments.

Video Recording Capabilities

Video functionality in both superzooms tends toward casual use rather than professional production, but it remains a useful secondary feature.

The Fujifilm may provide smoother video with interlaced 60i capture and a modern H.264 codec, resulting in better compression efficiency and image quality compared to Pentax’s Motion JPEG, which tends to produce large files with lower compression.

Additionally, the Fujifilm supports 60i full HD capture, slightly better suited for video enthusiasts who want smoother motion.

Neither model offers headphone or microphone ports, limiting their utility for serious videography.

Battery Life and Storage Options

Battery longevity and media flexibility influence extended shooting trips and workflow convenience.

AA battery reliance in the Fujifilm provides practical advantages in remote regions where lithium-ion charging is limited. Users can swap alkaline or NiMH batteries with ease, albeit at the cost of added weight.

Pentax’s proprietary battery is lighter but less convenient for extended remote shooting without spares or charger access.

Both cameras rely on standard SD cards but note that the Fujifilm supports SDXC, allowing use of higher capacity cards for longer shooting sessions or high bitrate video.

Connectivity and Additional Features

Connectivity remains minimal in both units, with obvious deficiencies for modern workflow integration.

• The Fujifilm S9800 offers no wireless connectivity options but includes a standard HDMI port for external display or playback.

• Pentax XG-1 features Eye-Fi card compatibility enabling wireless image transfers via the SD card but lacks HDMI entirely, restricting direct output options.

Neither model supports Bluetooth or NFC, and GPS is absent on both cameras, limiting geotagging capabilities.

Durability and Weather Sealing

Neither camera features any level of environmental sealing, dust, or water resistance. Users planning wildlife, landscape, or travel in challenging environments must take protective precautions to avoid damage.

Image Quality and Practical Use Case Synthesis

Sample images gathered during side-by-side controlled tests illustrate fundamental quality differences and lens behavior.

Fujifilm S9800 front Fujifilm S9800 screen back Pentax XG 1 front Pentax XG 1 screen back

• The Fujifilm S9800’s images exhibit generally cleaner tones, better contrast, and more accurate color rendering, critical for nature and portrait photography where skin tones must remain natural.

• The Pentax XG-1 tends toward softer detail retrieval at maximum zoom and higher noise levels beyond ISO 800, constraining usability in low light or astrophotography.

The absence of RAW file capture from both suggests these cameras fit best with photographers willing to accept limited post-processing flexibility.

Evaluated Performance Scores Overview

An aggregate scoring of both cameras in categories such as ergonomics, image quality, autofocus, and video capability reveals:

The Fujifilm S9800 leads slightly in handling and AF performance, with both cameras scoring similarly in image quality given sensor parity.

Specialized Photography Disciplines: Use Case Ratings

A further breakdown reveals nuanced suitability aligned to photographic genres below:

• Portrait Photography: Fujifilm’s face detection AF and better skin tone rendering place it ahead.

• Landscape Photography: Comparable resolution, but weather sealing absence and exposure bracketing favor the S9800.

• Wildlife Photography: S9800 has faster continuous AF and superior stabilization.

• Sports Photography: S9800’s faster burst and tracking AF are advantageous.

• Street Photography: XG-1’s lighter weight and smaller size afford more discretion.

• Macro Photography: Pentax’s 1cm focusing distance offers superior close-up potential.

• Night/Astro Photography: Neither excels; Fujifilm’s higher max ISO is preferable yet limited by noise.

• Video Capabilities: Fujifilm offers better codec and frame rates.

• Travel Photography: Both are portable, but Fuji’s battery system adds rugged flexibility.

• Professional Work: Limited to casual or semi-pro; RAW absence and build limit use.

Final Recommendations Based on Expertise

For photographers prioritizing long zoom with decent AF performance, superior battery flexibility, and better video capture, the Fujifilm S9800 is the more balanced, practical choice. Its small but meaningful edge in user interface, exposure bracketing, and stabilization translates directly into enhanced shooting responsiveness and creative options in real-world scenarios.

The Pentax XG-1 might appeal to budget-conscious users who prefer marginally lighter gear and appreciate extended macro capabilities, but its constrained autofocus and video technology limit its suitability beyond casual travel or street photography.

Neither camera satisfies professional requirements due to lack of RAW support, modest sensor size, and absence of advanced connectivity or durability features. However, given the price tags - Fujifilm around $299 and Pentax near $599 - the Fujifilm S9800 offers superior value for money, particularly for enthusiasts needing a versatile superzoom with good control fidelity.

Summary Table of Core Comparisons

Conclusion

This detailed comparative review highlights that despite near-identical sensor specs and zoom class, the Fujifilm S9800 exhibits superior versatility, autofocus sophistication, and video potential vital for serious hobbyists and photographers seeking an all-in-one travel-ready zoom solution without breaking the bank. The Pentax XG-1, while offering respectable zoom reach and macro capabilities, falls short in autofocus and video performance, restricting its appeal for active or creative disciplines demanding responsiveness and image integrity.

Purchasers should weigh the Fujifilm’s advantages in manual control, electronic viewfinding, and practical stabilization against the Pentax's compactness and longer focal length, aligning choice to their photographic pursuits, physical handling demands, and budget constraints.

This analysis draws upon rigorous field testing under controlled and natural lighting, standard technical measurements, and deep experience with these camera categories, delivering an authoritative resource for camera buyers aiming to maximize value and functionality in small sensor superzoom cameras.