Updated (February 2011): Compare the Canon PowerShot SX130 IS vs Fujifilm FinePix S4000

Fujifilm FinePix S4000 vs Canon PowerShot SX130 IS

Winner
Fujifilm FinePix S4000

32

Canon PowerShot SX130 IS

28

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Fujifilm FinePix S4000

Great viewfinder
Viewfinder
Digital
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX130 IS

Size
Really small
Mid size (113×73×46 mm)
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
Thickness
Thin
1.8"
Weight
Light-weight
308 g

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX130 IS.
Explore our gallery of 27 sample photos taken by the Fujifilm FinePix S4000.

competitors

Fujifilm FinePix S4000 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix L330

Nikon Coolpix L330

Super zoom

$159

Wide angle Much better wide angle
Size Smaller
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Canon Rebel T5i

Canon Rebel T5i

Entry-level DSLR

$435 - $649 body only

$529 - $599 with 18-55mm lens

Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Sony CyberShot DSC-H300

Sony CyberShot DSC-H300

Super zoom

$178 - $268

Image stabilization Better image stabilization
Zoom Slightly more zoom
Size Larger

Canon PowerShot SX130 IS Competitors

Canon PowerShot S120

Canon PowerShot S120

Pro digicam

$650

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Aperture Much wider aperture
Lowest price Significantly more expensive
Nikon D3200

Nikon D3200

Entry-level DSLR

$299 body only

$419 with 18-55mm lens

Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H3

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H3

Travel zoom

$233

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Continuous shooting Shoots slightly faster
Screen size Much smaller screen

discussion

Fujifilm FinePix S4000
FinePix S4000
Fujifilm

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot SX130 IS
PowerShot SX130 IS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments