Hey! You should know that Fujifilm has released a newer version of this product: the Fujifilm FinePix S2950.
Fujifilm FinePix S2800:
Hands On Review
We spent a few weeks with the Fujifilm FinePix S2800 budget superzoom camera to see if it can compete with class leaders. In short, it can't, but is it at least a value for the money?
By Liam McCabe
- S2800 Big Picture
- User comments
- Current Grade: B [What's this?]
Last updated on 01/18/2013
Fujifilm has a decent reputation with superzoom cameras. This year’s HS10 model, for example, earned a decent amount of praise from reviewers for its fast performance, full HD video capability, and 30x zoom. That’s a very good camera, able to compete with heavy hitters like the Panasonic FZ100 or Canon SX30.
Fujifilm’s latest superzoom, the FinePix S2800, looks decent on paper: 14 megapixels, 18x zoom, 720p HD video, 3-inch screen plus an electronic viewfinder, autofocus tracking, ISO range up to 6400, and most importantly, a street price under $220.
But just because two cameras both have big lenses and a dSLR-esque design does not mean that they’re created equal. To an inexperienced camera buyer, the S2800 might look like an advanced camera at a reasonable price, but to others, that will seem too good to be true. Let’s see how it stacks up.
Body and Design
As with most superzoom cameras, the S2800 looks roughly like a miniature dSLR. The contours are similar, just on a smaller scale, and at a glance, it looks more expensive that it actually is.

It has a comfortable in-hand feel, aided by a grippy surface. It’s light enough to hold up with one hand for a while, and the shutter and mode dial are in convenient positions to adjust, even with the one-handed grip. The shutter has a nice resistance, though the zoom tilter around the base feels too small, and is unresponsive at times. The flash is folded into the crest of the camera, and there’s a release button to the left that requires a spare hand to trigger (the camera will not automatically lift the flash), but there’s nothing to complain about regarding the flash operation.
The other useful buttons -- one for the “function” menu, an exposure compensation hotkey, and the viewfinder/LCD toggle -- are laid out comfortably as well. The typical digicam four-way pad is on the backside, though it’s slightly different than what I’m used to seeing. It’s more like an eight-way pad that only has functions assigned to five of the slots, including one for autofocus lock and one for brightness settings. But just because it’s different doesn’t make it bad. Up top, we get hotkeys for burst shooting and face detection settings. There is no dedicated video record button, which is pretty rare these days. In general, the ergonomics are quite good, and my few complaints are only minor.
But I do have some big complaints about the general build quality. It feels hollow, the hallmark of cheap electronics. The battery door feels particularly flimsy. The LCD is decent, but the electronic viewfinder (EVF) is very low-res, distractingly so at times. Obviously, something had to give to offset the cost of the big zoom lens, so corner-cutting is expected, and it’s great that Fujifilm included a viewfinder at all. However, I’ve reviewed a few cameras in the same price range, with similar specs no less, with a more solid build than the S2800.
User Experience and Performance
I’m not intimately familiar with Fujifilm’s menu system, so there was a bit of a learning curve. But in general, I found the menus easy enough to navigate. The surplus of direct-access keys makes for relatively smooth operating.
The actual performance is on the slow side compared to most superzooms we’ve tested in the past year. Startup is a bit lazy. Shutter lag is noticeable, and shot-to-shot time is sluggish. Even the zoom is unresponsive at times, especially right after coming out of picture review mode -- I’d push the tilter toward telephoto as soon as the picture review disappeared, but nothing would happen until I let go and tried again.
Autofocusing is particularly slow, bordering on unreliable in certain situations. It’s acceptable in good lighting, but can still turn out unfocused pictures, or at least ones that are focused on some obscure object toward the edges of the frame. Locking the autofocus indoors and at full zoom often took a few tries, though the mediocre image stabilization probably had more to do with the fuzzy shots at the telephoto end. Tracking autofocus, one of the few features that separates the S2800 from its predecessors, seemed to work most of them time -- once the focus was locked on an object, it stuck with it.
The S2800 is equipped with sensor-shift image stabilization, but it’s not entirely effective for freehand shooting at longer focal lengths. That presents a challenge for any stabilization system, but the systems in top superzooms pull it off. Still, any stabilization at all is a great thing, and it absolutely helps ameliorate blurring to a degree, but you’ll probably want a tripod if you plan to do a healthy amount of telephoto shooting.
As we’d expect on a superzoom, the S2800 does offer quite a few manual settings, including PASM modes and exposure tweaks. The right adjustments can give performance and image quality that extra edge. It’s always a good idea to read a camera’s manual, but it’s required reading with the S2800.
Image Quality
Take this as you will: Image quality is about what’s expected from a sub-$250 superzoom. If you’re a casual shooter, you’ll probably be pretty happy with shots that are taken in good conditions: well-lit outdoor scenes. Colors are a bit flat, but even basic photo software can add some zazz with just one mouse click. Exposure generally appropriate in good lighting, and not terribly awkward in poor lighting. However, it’s best to view these pictures at a medium-to-small size on a computer screen. Some small prints should look decent, too. Blow the pictures up any larger, though, and a whole range of inconsistencies become apparent, especially so in dim conditions. This is not a camera for enthusiasts or pixel peepers.
Noise is controlled pretty well up to ISO 400, though noise reduction starts to smudge details at that setting. At a pixel level, edges are fuzzy even at lower ISOs. At ISO 800 and especially 1600, shots are quite noisy and details are totally smeared. There are reduced-resolution ISO 3200 and 6400 settings, too. ISO 3200 is actually usable for on-screen purposes if you don’t mind the smaller picture, but ISO 6400 is a complete mess.
As for other common issues, purple and green fringing is a big problem in areas of high contrast, especially at full zoom (check out the fringing on the left side of the clock tower picture below), and the edges of the frame are often soft and visibly distorted even at the wide angle. In short, there are plenty of reasons to be dissatisfied with the S2800’s image quality. But casual shooters who mostly shoot outdoors, aren’t afraid to use a flash indoors, and rarely make large prints probably won’t notice most of these issues.
Wide-angle (28mm) vs. telephoto (504mm)
The S2800 has an “HD” tag attached to its name on the packaging, so Fujifilm wants you to know that this is a high-def shooting camera. HD video is pretty ubiquitous this year, so it’s not a special feature in my mind, and the S2800’s video quality isn’t anything to brag about either. It’s suitable for a camera at this price range, nothing more. Zoom does work during video, but the sound from the lens motor is particularly loud -- it’s present on most cameras if you listen closely (and if the camera doesn’t cut the microphone), but it’s a high-pitched whining noise on the S2800.
Conclusion
So the Fujifilm S2800 is flawed, in build quality, in performance, and in image quality. But it’s really a matter of perception. We shouldn’t expect great things from a sub-$250 superzoom. It’s inappropriate to compare it to an advanced camera, or even a $400 superzoom.
So compared to other low-cost superzooms -- Olympus’ latest SP-series cameras, or Fujifilm’s slightly older S1800 and S2550 models, to name a few -- the results are fairly similar. We tested the Olympus SP-600UZ a few months ago and the images are of similar quality, maybe slightly better because the megapixel count is lower (and so the shots are less susceptible to noise), though there is no EVF. If I were to buy a low-cost Fujifilm superzoom, I’d probably go with the S1800 or S2550. All three of the cameras are very similar, but the S2800 is the newest, so it’s the most expensive, and I’m not wild about the increased megapixel count, which I’m fairly confident has a net negative effect on the picture quality, all other things equal.
The bottom line is that the S2800 is a cheap compact camera with a big ol’ zoom lens stuck on the front of it to make it look impressive on paper, even if it can’t muster much in practice. It's priced so competitively that I can look past some of its faults and give it a relatively generous B+ rating. Still, you can do better as long as the S1800 and S2550 are still on the market. They'll shoot the same pictures, for the most part, and the older models cost less. But if you're actually in the market for a serious superzoom, save up another $50 and go for a better model from the 2009 season while they're still available, like the Panasonic FZ35 or Canon SX20.
Store Ratings and Offer Details for the
Fujifilm FinePix S2800
| Store Rating | Store Name | Price | Visit Store |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loading… | |||
|
|
|||
Similar Products
| Fetching our Best Offer… |
Fujifilm FinePix S2800 Comments & Questions (write your own!)
I'm writing from Argentina. I've a friend who is coming to our country from UK and I saw an offer of this camera in Amazon. I'm wondering if it worth for $158 (pounds). Here in Argentina we can't buy Fujifilm cameras.
Thanks!
If you're sure you want to stick with Fuji, know that the quality of their superzooms has fallen. The HS10 is a better camera, definitely, and if you go Fuji, definitely go for that camera. Hope this helps.
thx again!
i want so ask:
! S2500hd is the same with s2550hd?(cause i searched and it said s2500hd/s2550hd)
2.i am s starter so this is going to be my first camera better than the common...a friend of mine has s2000hd and is very satisfied,but then i saw s2500hd which has better specifications...i asked one with s25000hd(cause colours in samples i've seen didnt seem as vivid as s2000hd) and told me that is very sattisfied but thinks that s2800hd is better though she didnt tried it...and told me to check s1800 too...so now i am totally confused...all are about the same prices...soo which would you advise me to buy between s1800,s2000hd,s2500hd/s2550hd and s2800hd?
thank you very much!
2. The S2000 is a better camera than the S2500 -- it has bigger numbers on the spec sheet, but overall the S2000 is the better camera. I tried the S2800 and didn't like it much. The S1800 seems to break easily. I'd go with the S2000 if you can still find it, since it's out of production.
I hear what you're saying about other sites judging point-and-shoots like they're dSLRs, but I found that the S2800 had mediocre image quality even for a superzoom. However, the low price and big zoom help to make up for it, though I'd still recommend a different camera, as I mentioned in the conclusion of the review.
Sorry that you're frustrated in your hunt for a camera -- we have a new feature where we rank cameras according to other cameras in their category, if that might help. If you click on a camera type to your left, the results are in descending order of which ones we think are best. If you click on other categories -- price, MP count, manufacturer, you'll see a list of where each camera stands in relation to its camera type as well as where it is in that particular category.
It's hard to balance it all, especially since people break up categories in different ways, and choosing how to weigh different factors like image quality, price, feature set, etc, but we try, and we're working to make it even more transparent. But for your reference, we -- not speaking for other sites here -- rank cameras within their own class. Thanks for your feedback.
The bottom line for me when it comes to a "still camera" is the final, unadulterated , straight from the camera printable picture quality is what counts. ( I Kind of don't have the time and patience for photo shop. And there are other things I would rather spend the money on. My opinion with all equipment is, get equipment that works 'right" and don't waste your time trying to "fix" the "product" of equipment that doesn't. remember I have no patience ;-) ) Video would be nice, but not the issue. And I don't want more than 720 hi def.
"toy features" are cute but not really relevant. I want Good photo quality, in outdoor high contrast conditions, and in a wide range of lighting conditions/brightness levels. A wide angle would be great since many of my " panoramic outdoor shots" have been limited by my current "34MM or 36 MM equivalent 3x zoom lens now. And I would really like some good Zoom to get in on things that I can not get to , or not take an extra hour or 2 to hike to get close enough for a good pic with only 3x zoom. Sure it would be nice if it took good pictures indoors, for birthday party or Christmas present opening. but that is not really that critical, and probably would not, or rarely get a photo that way, that I would want to blow up, and put on the wall. . Those always seem like 4"x6" or maybe 5"x8" photo album type pics to me, and not that critical? What I want is a good , Primarily outdoor Scenery ( and hopefully wild life if I can find it/"catch it) camera. to take hiking and get good scenery pics. Hopefully to frame. And I need the "best" quality I can get in that price range. As I may never be able to get to the location to take the pic ever again. No trying again the next day or week. And of course it would be nice it it could be relied upon to take good looking/printing indoor shots, and video if possible. but it seems the video will just eat up your memory card. So it looks like those 2 concerns are definitely secondary. although it would be nice to be able to get good video, and not have to bring my non hi def camcorder along. but the dang camera memory devouring of video... So I think I have narrowed my choices down to . the Pansonic ZS6 (global positioning in the ZS7 sounds cute, but I don't think it is important enough to rationalize the extra cost. And faster battery draining? ) the Canon SX130 is or the Fuji finepix S2800 (or maybe S1800 they are the same price this month.) What I have noticed on my 5 or 6 year old Kodak Z760 is that the screen is unviewable often when hiking now. but it has a viewfinder.
only one of the cameras I was trying to narrow things down from had a view finder of any kind. I was almost thinking of getting the Fuji to "punish" everyone else for not bothering to put a view finder on the cameras. then I started thinking, maybe the screens are much better now so they can be used out in the Desert, or Hawaii or any bright light situations. Is this now the case???
Do you have any Good ;-) thoughts on which of those three camera's would be "noticeably better than the others. for a one camera person, that wants to be able to blow up good SCENERY, wildlife pics? Hiking, backpacking, camping, picnicking pics?
Also, do you know if all three of those cameras will remember that you do not want the flash to automatically go of after turning the camera off, and the restarting. my current one does Not. When I turn the camera back on to take a pic after having set the flash off.. It will flash again after restarting it, usually messing up the picture, and draining the battery. Sometimes causes me to miss picture.
And Do you know if that Canon ex130 is intelligent contrast feature that can "detect areas in the scene that are too bright or dark and automatically adjust them to the optimum brightness when shooting." is just a marketing gimic, and the other cameras have the same feature listed as something else?
Do you know if the other cameras have setting like canons "Positive Film" color setting? (they also have a Vivid color setting) setting, it looks interesting/promising.
Oh and do you know if cameras with the SUSNET scene setting will actually end up getting better sunset pictures than a camera without it.
Do you off hand remember if any of these cameras have the feature that lets you compose a picture then it holds a "ghost" image on the screen, and you can hand the camera to someone to take the picture after you get in it. and all they have to do is line up the ghost image over what the see on the screen, they can then take the composition that you wanted?
What do you think about those 'TOUGH/WATERPROOF cameras from Pentax and Olympus? Will they produce good quality "scenic" pictures to blow up. Do they have enough zoom for the outdoors? ( liked not having to worry about falling into a creek with my Pentax IQ 90 WR and the prospect of being able to take shots and "film" while snorkeling is intriguing. but I can't do much of that around here, or should I say Any of that around here. :-(
FINALLY do you know if there are any really "Still Photo Quality" Differences between the PANASONIC ZS6 , ZS7 or ZS 5? Besides the Global positioning, are there any real differences? Any reason to get one over the other? considering the ZS 6 is available "on sale" for $229.99 right now.( i think if not $249 or $279?)
Fuji S2800 $199.00
Canon EX130 is sometimes $229.99
Any reasons to get one over the other, or Not to get one?
( like to try and keep the cost under $200 I don't have money to "burn" and I get nervous Taking cameras out doors hiking to get potential damaged or lost. I would Freak out If I accidentally broke or lost a $300 or more camera while backpacking. Hmmm but those rugged water proof things... :-? OR are those waterproof cams just and Extra expense for noticeable lower quality pictures? and limited/not useful zoom? in a camera that you wont break...
Hey! It's Dinner time!!!
Thank You for your assistance. And I welcome hearing from people with first hand experience with these types of cameras. Remember that I am interested in the quality of PRINTS and and I would like to blow up and frame the pics I Like. not really concerned so much how they will look on a computer screen or on the back of a camera. Of course reliability , speed/and ease of use count too...
a couple of years ago before going On a trip, I wanted to up grade my picture print quality, and get some More Zoom. so I compared a then new Canon (720?) I can't remember the model. but it was a point and shoot 8 MP camera with 6x zoom, and it still had a View Finder. (They need to put those back on the dang cameras! unless there has been some massive improvement on LCD screens and then can be relied upon to be usable out in the sun.)
I thought the Canon would produce obviously better picture when taking the Same Picture as the Kodak.. When printed. Unfortunately the Canons print was Obviously NOT as good as the older lower MP Kodak. a confusing let down. I though since it was a Canon, and had 8 MP instead of 6 MP it would have produced a Better picture than the Kodak.
I ended up returning the canon, and taking my old Kodak.
What is up with that???
I don't want to spend more money on a new camera, and end up with lower quality prints.
Does it work any differently Or Noticeably better than Pansaonics ZS6 flash, Fuji s2800 flash. or samsung hz30w ... etc, flashes?
im totally confused in finalizing a digital cam..im not really a professional photographer but in search of best from the budget i have coz i will not b able to change in near future once i bought.
my requirements are:
1. extended zoom (10+)
2. SLR form factor (like nikon l110 or fuji s1600 etc)
3. need zoom while video recording vid least or preferably no sound while zooming
4. must not b more than 300$
5. no compromise on image quality
plz james suggest me a one..preferably from canon, nikon, olympus, panasonic and fuji..ill wait for ur fast reply
Nikon L110 or Fuji s2800 hd ?????????????
The S2500HD has a great zoom, but I've read that the color accuracy isn't that great and the quality of the image gets real noisy above ISO 800. You can do better.
