Fujifilm FinePix S8200 vs Canon PowerShot SX510 HS

Winner
Fujifilm FinePix S8200

50

Canon PowerShot SX510 HS

44

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Fujifilm FinePix S8200

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/2.9
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
480 fps
High ISO
Light sensitivity
12,800 ISO
In-camera HDR
HDR
Combines multiple exposures
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX510 HS

Size
Really small
Standard size (104×70×80 mm)
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
Weight
Light-weight
349 g
High-speed framerate
High speed movies
240 fps

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX510 HS.
Explore our gallery of 5 sample photos taken by the Fujifilm FinePix S8200.

competitors

Fujifilm FinePix S8200 Competitors

Fujifilm FinePix S8600

Fujifilm FinePix S8600

Super zoom

$113 - $159

Size Significantly smaller
Thickness Significantly thinner
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot SX540 HS

Canon PowerShot SX540 HS

Super zoom

$349 - $399

Zoom More zoom
Size Smaller
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Fujifilm FinePix SL1000

Fujifilm FinePix SL1000

Super zoom

$330

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Zoom More zoom
Battery life Significantly shorter battery life

Canon PowerShot SX510 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX410 IS

Canon PowerShot SX410 IS

Super zoom

$179

Zoom More zoom
Fastest shutter speed Much faster max shutter speed
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Nikon Coolpix L840

Nikon Coolpix L840

Super zoom

$189

Battery life Much longer battery life
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Sony CyberShot DSC-H300

Sony CyberShot DSC-H300

Super zoom

$150 - $168

Aperture Wider aperture
Panorama Can create panoramas in-camera
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Fujifilm FinePix S8200
FinePix S8200
Fujifilm

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot SX510 HS
PowerShot SX510 HS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments