As well as being compared against other compacts, the Fujifilm FinePix A400 Zoom is also often compared to travel zooms, super zooms and digicams. The Fujifilm FinePix A400 Zoom's top rivals come from Canon (such as the PowerShot SX260 HS and the PowerShot ELPH 150 IS) and Samsung (such as the Galaxy Camera 2)

compared toCompact competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Fujifilm A400 Zoom compared to other compact competitors include: it is thinner (1.1" vs 2.5"), has a viewfinder (tunnel vs none) and has a faster max shutter speed (1/1500 of a second vs 1/1000 of a second).

However, on average it has a slightly narrower wide angle lens (38 mm vs 36 mm), has a much smaller screen (1.8" vs 2.5"), takes slightly lower resolution photos (4 MP vs 8 MP) and is older (january 2006 vs august 2008).

Olympus FE-20

Olympus FE-20
2 years newer

Significant advantages of the FE-20 (vs the A400 Zoom)

  • Much larger screen: 2.5" vs 1.8"
  • Better wide angle: 36 mm vs 38 mm
  • Much faster max shutter speed: 1/2000 of a second vs 1/1500 of a second

Significant disadvantages of the FE-20 (vs the A400 Zoom)

  • No viewfinder: None vs Tunnel

common strengths of the FE-20 and A400 Zoom

  • Fairly small: Super compact (96×57×22 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)
  • Light weight: 128 g vs 170 g

HP Photosmart M537

HP Photosmart M537
1 year newer

Significant advantages of the M537 (vs the A400 Zoom)

  • Much larger screen: 2.5" vs 1.8"

Significant disadvantages of the M537 (vs the A400 Zoom)

  • Much thicker: 2.5" vs 1.1"
  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/1000 of a second vs 1/1500 of a second
  • No viewfinder: None vs Tunnel

common strengths of the M537 and A400 Zoom

  • None found

compared toTravel zoom competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Fujifilm A400 Zoom compared to travel zoom competitors include: it is slightly lighter (170 g vs 231 g) and has a viewfinder (tunnel vs none).

However, on average it has slightly less zoom (3x vs 20x), has a much narrower wide angle lens (38 mm vs 24 mm), doesn't have a built-in GPS, records lower quality movies (320 x 240 @ 10fps vs 1080p @ 24fps) and has a much smaller screen (1.8" vs 4.8").

Canon PowerShot SX260 HS

Canon PowerShot SX260 HS
6 years newer
$339

Significant advantages of the SX260 HS (vs the A400 Zoom)

  • Much better wide angle: 25 mm vs 38 mm
  • Much larger screen: 3" vs 1.8"
  • Image stabilization:
    1. Lens
    vs None

Significant disadvantages of the SX260 HS (vs the A400 Zoom)

  • Larger: Compact (106×61×33 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)
  • Heavier: 231 g vs 170 g
  • No viewfinder: None vs Tunnel

common strengths of the SX260 HS and A400 Zoom

  • None found

Canon PowerShot ELPH 150 IS

Canon PowerShot ELPH 150 IS
8 years newer
$335

Significant advantages of the ELPH 150 IS (vs the A400 Zoom)

  • Much better wide angle: 24 mm vs 38 mm
  • Image stabilization:
    1. Lens
    vs None
  • Much larger screen: 2.7" vs 1.8"

Significant disadvantages of the ELPH 150 IS (vs the A400 Zoom)

  • No viewfinder: None vs Tunnel

common strengths of the ELPH 150 IS and A400 Zoom

  • Fairly small: Compact (95×57×24 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)
  • Light weight: 142 g vs 170 g
  • Thin: 0.9" vs 1.1"

Samsung Galaxy Camera 2

Samsung Galaxy Camera 2
8 years newer
$530

Significant advantages of the Camera 2 (vs the A400 Zoom)

  • Much larger screen: 4.8" vs 1.8"
  • Much better wide angle: 23 mm vs 38 mm
  • Image stabilization:
    1. Lens
    vs None

Significant disadvantages of the Camera 2 (vs the A400 Zoom)

  • Significantly heavier: 283 g vs 170 g
  • No viewfinder: None vs Tunnel

common strengths of the Camera 2 and A400 Zoom

  • Fairly small: Compact (133×71×19 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)
  • Thin: 0.7" vs 1.1"

compared toSuper zoom competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Fujifilm A400 Zoom compared to super zoom competitors include: it is slightly smaller (compact (93×60×28 mm) vs standard size (109×74×76 mm)), is thinner (1.1" vs 3"), is slightly lighter (170 g vs 340 g) and has a faster max shutter speed (1/1500 of a second vs 1/1000 of a second).

However, on average it has a slightly narrower aperture (f/3.3 vs f/2.8), has a slightly narrower wide angle lens (38 mm vs 36 mm), has a much smaller screen (1.8" vs 2.5"), has a slightly lower resolution screen (77k dots vs 230k dots) and doesn't have image stabilization (none vs lens).

Kodak EasyShare Z812 IS

Kodak EasyShare Z812 IS
1 year newer
$387

Significant advantages of the Z812 IS (vs the A400 Zoom)

  • Much larger screen: 2.5" vs 1.8"
  • Image stabilization:
    1. Lens
    vs None

Significant disadvantages of the Z812 IS (vs the A400 Zoom)

  • Thicker: 3" vs 1.1"
  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/1000 of a second vs 1/1500 of a second

common strengths of the Z812 IS and A400 Zoom

  • Fairly small: Standard size (109×74×76 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)
  • Very light: 340 g vs 170 g
  • Thin: 3" vs 1.1"

compared toDigicam competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Fujifilm A400 Zoom compared to digicam competitors include: it has a significantly larger screen (1.8" vs 1.6"), is newer (january 2006 vs september 1999) and has a faster max shutter speed (1/1500 of a second vs 1/750 of a second).

Kodak EasyShare CX4230

Placeholder
3 years older

Significant advantages of the CX4230 (vs the A400 Zoom)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the CX4230 (vs the A400 Zoom)

  • Significantly smaller screen: 1.6" vs 1.8"

common strengths of the CX4230 and A400 Zoom

  • Fairly small: Mid size (115×66×40 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)
  • Thin: 1.6" vs 1.1"
  • Both have tunnel viewfinders: Tunnel vs Tunnel

Fujifilm MX-1200

Placeholder
6 years older

Significant advantages of the MX-1200 (vs the A400 Zoom)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the MX-1200 (vs the A400 Zoom)

  • Significantly narrower aperture: f/4.5 vs f/3.3
  • Significantly smaller screen: 1.6" vs 1.8"
  • Much slower max shutter speed: 1/750 of a second vs 1/1500 of a second

common strengths of the MX-1200 and A400 Zoom

  • Fairly small: Mid size (110×77×33 mm) vs Compact (93×60×28 mm)
  • Thin: 1.3" vs 1.1"
  • Light weight: 240 g vs 170 g