Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F
61 Imaging
40 Features
46 Overall
42
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/efb63/efb6340c1d8c6a567fbd5c14dc3dcf82f92a2f35" alt="Fujifilm S9800 front Fujifilm S9800 front"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/52f91/52f9140fa7006285dc43ba7d1f1fb45d41f5684b" alt="Samsung WB35F front Samsung WB35F front"
93 Imaging
40 Features
33 Overall
37
Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F Key Specs
(Full Review)
- 16MP - 1/2.3" Sensor
- 3" Fixed Screen
- ISO 100 - 12800
- Optical Image Stabilization
- 1920 x 1080 video
- 24-1200mm (F2.9-6.5) lens
- 670g - 123 x 87 x 116mm
- Launched January 2015
(Full Review)
- 16MP - 1/2.3" Sensor
- 2.7" Fixed Screen
- ISO 80 - 3200
- Optical Image Stabilization
- 1280 x 720 video
- 24-288mm (F3.1-6.3) lens
- 194g - 101 x 61 x 28mm
- Released January 2014
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85299/85299aa0d77ee8b6a2d3435fdb68ab0ccaabf584" alt=""
Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F Overview
The following is a in-depth analysis of the Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F, both Small Sensor Superzoom digital cameras by companies FujiFilm and Samsung. The resolution of the Fujifilm S9800 (16MP) and the WB35F (16MP) is relatively well matched and both cameras have the same sensor size (1/2.3").
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/427ef/427ef51d855b8f8d8523699aa2b0465afb765511" alt=""
The Fujifilm S9800 was announced 13 months after the WB35F which makes them a generation away from each other. Each of the cameras have different body design with the Fujifilm S9800 being a SLR-like (bridge) camera and the Samsung WB35F being a Compact camera.
Before getting right into a complete comparison, here is a concise synopsis of how the Fujifilm S9800 scores vs the WB35F in regards to portability, imaging, features and an overall mark.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bfda9/bfda97b4ea42610c4d033bdc3102b7af07982c04" alt=""
Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F Gallery
The following is a preview of the gallery photos for Fujifilm S9800 and Samsung WB35F. The whole galleries are provided at Fujifilm S9800 Gallery and Samsung WB35F Gallery.
Reasons to pick Fujifilm S9800 over the Samsung WB35F
Fujifilm S9800 | WB35F | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Released | January 2015 | ![]() | January 2014 | Newer by 13 months |
Screen dimensions | 3" | ![]() | 2.7" | Bigger screen (+0.3") |
Screen resolution | 460k | ![]() | 230k | Sharper screen (+230k dot) |
Selfie screen | ![]() | Take selfies |
Reasons to pick Samsung WB35F over the Fujifilm S9800
WB35F | Fujifilm S9800 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Manual focus | ![]() | More accurate focus |
Common features in the Fujifilm S9800 and Samsung WB35F
Fujifilm S9800 | WB35F | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Screen type | Fixed | ![]() | Fixed | Fixed screen |
Touch friendly screen | ![]() | Neither has Touch friendly screen |
Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F Physical Comparison
If you are intending to travel with your camera frequently, you should think about its weight and dimensions. The Fujifilm S9800 has physical measurements of 123mm x 87mm x 116mm (4.8" x 3.4" x 4.6") along with a weight of 670 grams (1.48 lbs) and the Samsung WB35F has dimensions of 101mm x 61mm x 28mm (4.0" x 2.4" x 1.1") accompanied by a weight of 194 grams (0.43 lbs).
Check out the Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F in the new Camera with Lens Size Comparison Tool.data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a6ef8/a6ef8f16e8deba30cb986caafd44d83681e96a75" alt="Camera Size Comparison with Lenses Camera Size Comparison with Lenses"
Keep in mind, the weight of an Interchangeable Lens Camera will differ depending on the lens you are utilising during that time. Underneath is a front view measurements comparison of the Fujifilm S9800 against the WB35F.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dad5a/dad5afaee3825e9132ce1620de3e2ace999b8aa8" alt="Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F size comparison Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F size comparison"
Looking at size and weight, the portability grade of the Fujifilm S9800 and WB35F is 61 and 93 respectively.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c3993/c3993d0cc249519f0d81b7e05c1d6566bb672a9a" alt="Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F top view buttons comparison Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F top view buttons comparison"
Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F Sensor Comparison
Usually, it is hard to visualise the gap between sensor dimensions simply by looking at specs. The image here will help provide you a more clear sense of the sensor sizing in the Fujifilm S9800 and WB35F.
All in all, both the cameras have the same sensor dimensions and the same exact megapixels so you should expect similar quality of files but you should always take the release date of the products into consideration. The more recent Fujifilm S9800 is going to have a benefit with regard to sensor tech.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/40c07/40c07daa9e99c06aeea34d38d02b47a98b62ea3e" alt="Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F sensor size comparison Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F sensor size comparison"
Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F Screen and ViewFinder
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/379ff/379ffcf36f4c13299b0adbd92ad5057c3ba719a1" alt="Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F Screen and Viewfinder comparison Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F Screen and Viewfinder comparison"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4fad8/4fad8be6e5d8cb84d21f21424f73546c57bfca20" alt=""
Photography Type Scores
Portrait Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6d588/6d5886e45f6ed46a44c58516180e79dc4c09297f" alt=""
Street Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8876b/8876ba1234536f7f948b3ad54614ecbba59fd0b6" alt=""
Sports Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9df93/9df93b830615ba08ba0f7e31492fca23710a884c" alt=""
Travel Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c3338/c3338e925c8d47c26e739e490d039a1411046530" alt=""
Landscape Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09f89/09f89c6b5dc0c8e793ce323afb658e7f43d45612" alt=""
Vlogging Comparison
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/40b17/40b178b2c2a7887c950c5d80f9aa0bc017ad9376" alt=""
Fujifilm S9800 vs Samsung WB35F Specifications
Fujifilm S9800 | Samsung WB35F | |
---|---|---|
General Information | ||
Company | FujiFilm | Samsung |
Model | Fujifilm S9800 | Samsung WB35F |
Type | Small Sensor Superzoom | Small Sensor Superzoom |
Launched | 2015-01-14 | 2014-01-07 |
Body design | SLR-like (bridge) | Compact |
Sensor Information | ||
Sensor type | CMOS | CCD |
Sensor size | 1/2.3" | 1/2.3" |
Sensor measurements | 6.17 x 4.55mm | 6.17 x 4.55mm |
Sensor surface area | 28.1mm² | 28.1mm² |
Sensor resolution | 16MP | 16MP |
Anti aliasing filter | ||
Aspect ratio | 1:1, 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 | 4:3 and 16:9 |
Maximum resolution | 4608 x 3456 | 4608 x 3456 |
Maximum native ISO | 12800 | 3200 |
Minimum native ISO | 100 | 80 |
RAW images | ||
Autofocusing | ||
Focus manually | ||
Autofocus touch | ||
Continuous autofocus | ||
Autofocus single | ||
Tracking autofocus | ||
Autofocus selectice | ||
Autofocus center weighted | ||
Autofocus multi area | ||
Live view autofocus | ||
Face detection autofocus | ||
Contract detection autofocus | ||
Phase detection autofocus | ||
Cross focus points | - | - |
Lens | ||
Lens mount | fixed lens | fixed lens |
Lens focal range | 24-1200mm (50.0x) | 24-288mm (12.0x) |
Highest aperture | f/2.9-6.5 | f/3.1-6.3 |
Macro focus distance | 7cm | - |
Crop factor | 5.8 | 5.8 |
Screen | ||
Screen type | Fixed Type | Fixed Type |
Screen diagonal | 3" | 2.7" |
Resolution of screen | 460k dot | 230k dot |
Selfie friendly | ||
Liveview | ||
Touch screen | ||
Viewfinder Information | ||
Viewfinder type | Electronic | None |
Viewfinder resolution | 920k dot | - |
Viewfinder coverage | 97 percent | - |
Features | ||
Slowest shutter speed | 8s | 8s |
Maximum shutter speed | 1/1700s | 1/2000s |
Continuous shooting speed | 10.0 frames per second | - |
Shutter priority | ||
Aperture priority | ||
Expose Manually | ||
Exposure compensation | Yes | - |
Change white balance | ||
Image stabilization | ||
Integrated flash | ||
Flash range | 7.00 m (with Auto ISO) | - |
Flash settings | Auto, flash on, flash off, slow synchro | - |
Hot shoe | ||
AE bracketing | ||
WB bracketing | ||
Exposure | ||
Multisegment | ||
Average | ||
Spot | ||
Partial | ||
AF area | ||
Center weighted | ||
Video features | ||
Video resolutions | 1920 x 1080 (6oi), 1280 x 720 (60p), 640 x 480 (30p) | 1280 x 720 |
Maximum video resolution | 1920x1080 | 1280x720 |
Video data format | H.264 | - |
Microphone jack | ||
Headphone jack | ||
Connectivity | ||
Wireless | None | Built-In |
Bluetooth | ||
NFC | ||
HDMI | ||
USB | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) | none |
GPS | None | None |
Physical | ||
Environment seal | ||
Water proof | ||
Dust proof | ||
Shock proof | ||
Crush proof | ||
Freeze proof | ||
Weight | 670 gr (1.48 lbs) | 194 gr (0.43 lbs) |
Physical dimensions | 123 x 87 x 116mm (4.8" x 3.4" x 4.6") | 101 x 61 x 28mm (4.0" x 2.4" x 1.1") |
DXO scores | ||
DXO All around score | not tested | not tested |
DXO Color Depth score | not tested | not tested |
DXO Dynamic range score | not tested | not tested |
DXO Low light score | not tested | not tested |
Other | ||
Battery life | 300 images | - |
Style of battery | Battery Pack | - |
Battery model | 4 x AA | BP70A |
Self timer | Yes (2 or 10 sec) | - |
Time lapse shooting | ||
Type of storage | SD/SDHC/SDXC, Internal | MicroSD, MicroSDHC, MicroSDXC |
Storage slots | Single | Single |
Cost at launch | $299 | $130 |