As well as being compared against other compacts, the Fujifilm FinePix AV205 is also often compared to ultra compacts and travel zooms. The Fujifilm FinePix AV205's top rivals come from Canon (such as the PowerShot A810 and the PowerShot IXUS 125 HS) and Samsung (such as the WB30F and the ES30)

Competitor classes

compared toCompact competitors

Generally, compared to other compact competitors the Fujifilm AV205 has a significantly narrower wide angle lens (32 mm vs 28 mm), is slightly larger (compact (93×60×28 mm) vs compact (96×62×23 mm)), has a CCD-family sensor (CCD vs CMOS), is thicker (1.1" vs 0.9") and has a slower max shutter speed (1/1400 of a second vs 1/2000 of a second).

Canon PowerShot A810

Canon PowerShot A810
1 year newer

Significant advantages of the A810 (vs the AV205)

  • Significantly better wide angle: 28 mm vs 32 mm
  • Significantly faster max shutter speed: 1/2000 of a second vs 1/1400 of a second

Significant disadvantages of the A810 (vs the AV205)

  • Significantly larger: Compact (95×62×30 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)

common strengths of the A810 and AV205

  • Very small: Compact (95×62×30 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)
  • Very light: 171 g vs 168 g
  • Thin: 1.2" vs 1.1"

Canon PowerShot IXUS 125 HS

Canon IXUS 125 HS
10 months newer

Significant advantages of the IXUS 125 HS (vs the AV205)

  • Much better wide angle: 24 mm vs 32 mm
  • Much smaller: Super compact (93×57×20 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)
  • Has a CMOS-family sensor: CMOS vs CCD

Significant disadvantages of the IXUS 125 HS (vs the AV205)

  • None found

common strengths of the IXUS 125 HS and AV205

  • Very small: Super compact (93×57×20 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)
  • Very light: 135 g vs 168 g
  • Thin: 0.8" vs 1.1"

Fujifilm FinePix AX305

Fujifilm FinePix AX305
similar age

Significant advantages of the AX305 (vs the AV205)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the AX305 (vs the AV205)

  • None found

common strengths of the AX305 and AV205

  • Very small: Compact (93×60×28 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)
  • Very light: 168 g vs 168 g
  • Thin: 1.1" vs 1.1"

Samsung ES30

Samsung ES30
5 months older
$101

Significant advantages of the ES30 (vs the AV205)

  • Much better wide angle: 27 mm vs 32 mm
  • Much larger screen: 3" vs 2.7"
  • Significantly smaller: Compact (96×62×23 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)

Significant disadvantages of the ES30 (vs the AV205)

  • None found

common strengths of the ES30 and AV205

  • Very small: Compact (96×62×23 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)
  • Very light: 141 g vs 168 g
  • Thin: 0.9" vs 1.1"

Canon PowerShot A495

Canon PowerShot A495
1 year older
$112

Significant advantages of the A495 (vs the AV205)

  • Significantly faster max shutter speed: 1/2000 of a second vs 1/1400 of a second

Significant disadvantages of the A495 (vs the AV205)

  • Much worse wide angle: 37 mm vs 32 mm
  • No image stabilization: None vs
    1. Digital
  • Significantly larger: Compact (94×62×31 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)

common strengths of the A495 and AV205

  • Very small: Compact (94×62×31 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)
  • Very light: 175 g vs 168 g
  • Thin: 1.2" vs 1.1"

Sony Cybershot W510

Sony Cybershot DSC-W510
similar age
$112

Significant advantages of the W510 (vs the AV205)

  • Much smaller: Super compact (96×54×20 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)
  • Much better wide angle: 26 mm vs 32 mm
  • Better image stabilization:
    1. Digital
    2. Lens
    vs
    1. Digital

Significant disadvantages of the W510 (vs the AV205)

  • None found

common strengths of the W510 and AV205

  • Very small: Super compact (96×54×20 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)
  • Very light: 119 g vs 168 g
  • Thin: 0.8" vs 1.1"

compared toUltra compact competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Fujifilm AV205 compared to ultra compact competitors include: it is newer (february 2011 vs october 2005).

However, on average it has a significantly narrower wide angle lens (32 mm vs 25 mm), has a significantly smaller screen (2.7" vs 3"), is much larger (compact (93×60×28 mm) vs ultra compact (90×55×19 mm)), doesn't have a touch screen and doesn't shoot as fast continuously (1.2 fps vs 10 fps).

Samsung WB30F

Samsung WB30F
1 year newer
$177

Significant advantages of the WB30F (vs the AV205)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the WB30F (vs the AV205)

  • None found

common strengths of the WB30F and AV205

  • None found

Samsung ST72

Samsung ST72
1 year newer

Significant advantages of the ST72 (vs the AV205)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the ST72 (vs the AV205)

  • None found

common strengths of the ST72 and AV205

  • None found

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX20

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX20
1 year newer

Significant advantages of the DSC-TX20 (vs the AV205)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the DSC-TX20 (vs the AV205)

  • None found

common strengths of the DSC-TX20 and AV205

  • None found

Fujifilm FinePix Z2

Placeholder
5 years older

Significant advantages of the Z2 (vs the AV205)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the Z2 (vs the AV205)

  • None found

common strengths of the Z2 and AV205

  • None found

compared toTravel zoom competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Fujifilm AV205 compared to travel zoom competitors include: it is much smaller (compact (93×60×28 mm) vs compact (101×68×27 mm)).

However, on average it has a much narrower wide angle lens (32 mm vs 24 mm), has a much smaller screen (2.7" vs 3"), has a slightly lower resolution screen (230k dots vs 460k dots), has worse image stabilization (digital vs lens) and slightly lower maximum light sensitivity (1,600 ISO vs 3,200 ISO).

Samsung WB50F

Samsung WB50F
2 years newer
$278

Significant advantages of the WB50F (vs the AV205)

  • Much better wide angle: 24 mm vs 32 mm
  • Much larger screen: 3" vs 2.7"
  • Better image stabilization:
    1. Lens
    vs
    1. Digital

Significant disadvantages of the WB50F (vs the AV205)

  • Much larger: Compact (101×68×27 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)

common strengths of the WB50F and AV205

  • Very small: Compact (101×68×27 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)
  • Very light: 157 g vs 168 g
  • Very thin: 1.1" vs 1.1"