Kodak Easyshare Z990 MAX vs Fujifilm FinePix S2950

Winner
Kodak Easyshare Z990 MAX

47

Fujifilm FinePix S2950

39

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Kodak Easyshare Z990 MAX

Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens
CMOS Sensor
Sensor type
Better in low light
In-camera HDR
HDR
Combines multiple exposures
Shoots RAW
Supports RAW
Better editing
 

Reasons to buy the Fujifilm FinePix S2950

Size
Really small
Prosumer size (110×73×81 mm)
Screen size
Large screen
3"
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Panorama
In-camera panoramas
Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Fujifilm FinePix S2950.
Explore our gallery of 44 sample photos taken by the Kodak Easyshare Z990 MAX.

competitors

Kodak Easyshare Z990 MAX Competitors

Canon Rebel T3

Canon Rebel T3

Entry-level DSLR

$450 with 18-55mm lens

Autofocus Faster autofocus
Interchangeable lenses Has interchangeable lenses
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi

Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi

Entry-level DSLR

Interchangeable lenses Has interchangeable lenses
Size Smaller
Screen size Much smaller screen
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300

Super zoom

$472 - $598

Movie format Higher resolution movies
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Size Larger

Fujifilm FinePix S2950 Competitors

Fujifilm FinePix S8200

Fujifilm FinePix S8200

Super zoom

$228

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
3D Takes 3D photos
Size Significantly larger
Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$329 body only

$399 - $547 with 18-55mm lens

True resolution Much higher true resolution
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Fujifilm FinePix S4000

Fujifilm FinePix S4000

Super zoom

$250

Wide angle Better wide angle
Zoom More zoom
Size Larger

discussion

Kodak Easyshare Z990 MAX
Easyshare Z990 MAX
Kodak

Report a correction
Fujifilm FinePix S2950
FinePix S2950
Fujifilm

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments