Canon ELPH 310 HS vs Kodak EasyShare M380: A Deep Dive Into Ultracompact Showdown

When it comes to ultracompact cameras, the market often presents a dizzying array of choices, each promising to pack big power into a small frame. Today, we’re peeling back the layers on two such contenders - the Canon ELPH 310 HS (also known as IXUS 230 HS) and the Kodak EasyShare M380. These pocket-friendly shooters have carved their niches over the past decade, offering accessible photography for casual users, travel enthusiasts, and those who want a no-fuss camera without the bulk.

Having personally tested hundreds of compact cameras across multiple genres, I find these two models an intriguing study in contrasts - one leaning on newer sensor tech and zoom muscle, the other embracing simplicity and an approachable price point. Let’s roll up our sleeves and truly understand how these cameras behave in real-world scenarios across photography genres, technical performance, ergonomics, and value.

Getting to Know Your Pocket Companion: Size and Build

Right off the bat, the physical feel is paramount in deciding which camera you’d want to carry everywhere. The Canon ELPH 310 HS measures a neat 96x57x22mm and weighs just 140g with battery, while the Kodak M380 is slightly chunkier at 100x60x20mm and weighs 155g. Both slip comfortably into a jacket pocket or small bag, but the Canon’s more refined ergonomics edge ahead for me - its rounded edges and grip texture (though modest) feel slightly more secure during handheld shooting.

The Kodak’s square-ish form is functional but less inviting for extended use. In day-to-day handheld operation, the Canon’s smaller footprint and lighter weight translate into less wrist fatigue over the long haul - a subtle difference, but notable if you’re a travel shooter who’s always on the move.

Canon’s build comes across as a little more modern and polished, consistent with its 2011 launch date versus Kodak’s early 2009 introduction. The Canon also sports optical image stabilization - a critical feature missing from the Kodak - which assists in reducing blurry shots especially at longer focal lengths or dim conditions.

Looks Aren’t Everything, But Controls Matter

Turn the cameras over to their commanding decks, and you notice some interesting design decisions. The Canon ELPH 310 HS employs a minimalistic, streamlined control interface with simple mode dials and a responsive shutter release. Despite its ultra-portability, it manages to squeeze in some physical buttons that give direct access to commonly adjusted settings like flash, exposure, and self-timer. I appreciated this thoughtful balance during field tests; it importantly saved me from menu-diving when seconds mattered.

Kodak M380, on the other hand, keeps a much simpler approach. Without dedicated mode dials or quick access buttons, almost everything requires menu navigation via the directional pad. For casual or novice users who appreciate point-and-shoot straightforwardness, this is fine, but for those photographers who want to tweak parameters on the fly - sports or wildlife enthusiasts, I’m looking at you - this slows down responsiveness.

Both cameras lack electronic viewfinders, which is expected at this price and size point, meaning reliance is entirely on their rear LCDs for composing shots.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Under the hood, image quality largely depends on sensor technology and processing. Canon's ELPH 310 HS sports a 12-megapixel backside-illuminated CMOS sensor measuring 1/2.3", while the Kodak M380 is equipped with an older-style CCD sensor of 10 megapixels but the same physical size (1/2.3").

What does this mean practically?

• Canon’s BSI-CMOS sensor offers better light gathering efficiency, resulting in improved low-light performance, less noise, and faster autofocus thanks to onboard processing.
• Kodak’s CCD sensor has decent color rendition but typically struggles with noise at higher ISOs and slower readout speeds.

Canon’s sensor also enables Full HD video recording at 1920x1080 pixels with 24fps - a late addition for the era - whereas Kodak’s video maxes out at VGA (640x480) resolution, which feels almost archaic today even by casual standards.

Resolution-wise, Canon delivers 4000x3000 pixels (12MP) versus Kodak’s 3648x2736 pixels (10MP). While this difference isn’t huge, it translates into slightly better cropping flexibility and larger print sizes for Canon.

For photographers concerned with dynamic range, landscape shooters particularly, the Canon’s newer sensor and image processor handle contrast better with enhanced highlight recovery and shadow detail clarity. I tested both under harsh midday sunlight, and Canon’s images preserved sky textures and foliage details more pleasingly.

More Than Just Pixels: Autofocus and Speed Performance

Both cameras rely exclusively on contrast-detection autofocus with varying sophistication.

• Canon ELPH 310 HS has 9 focus points and supports face detection, continuous AF, and tracking, allowing it to maintain better focus on moving subjects or shifting compositions.
• Kodak M380 features a much larger 25-point AF area but lacks face or subject tracking, reducing its effectiveness on action shots or in dynamic environments.

During my wildlife and sports simulations, Canon demonstrated faster lock speeds and maintained sharp focus on relatively fast-moving objects. Kodak was noticeably slower and prone to hunting in dappled light or with erratic motion - expected for its older AF system.

Burst shooting also reveals performance gaps: Canon can sustain 3 fps, modest but serviceable for casual sports or street shooting. Kodak doesn’t specify burst rate, and its buffer supports only a couple of shots before pausing.

The User Experience: Display and Interface Insights

Screen quality affects framing, reviewing shots, and accessibility - areas where ultracompacts sometimes fall flat.

• Canon sports a 3” PureColor II G TFT LCD with 461k-dot resolution - crisp, bright, and has decent viewing angles. It performs well outdoors under sunlight, a key point for travel and landscape shooters who rely on composing via LCD.
• Kodak has a similar 3” size but only 230k-dot resolution, which feels noticeably less sharp. Its color reproduction leans cooler and darker, making it harder to verify focus or exposure in bright conditions.

Both lack touchscreen capability and electronic viewfinders, which, while expected at their price points, limit fast manual control and precision framing.

Optical and Zoom Capabilities: Focal Range and Macro Potential

Zoom versatility is often decisive when contemplating a compact. The Canon ELPH 310 HS offers an 8x zoom from 28mm wide-angle to 224mm telephoto (35mm equivalent), while the Kodak M380 has a 5x zoom ranging 38-190mm. The wider starting focal length on the Canon means it’s slightly better for landscapes or group portraits, values where you want to pack more into the frame.

Macro performance flips the script somewhat:

• Canon's minimum focus distance is just 1 cm, allowing for impressive close-up shots with tight details - ideal for capturing insects, flowers, or textures.
• Kodak’s macro minimum focus is 10 cm, which is significantly less flexible, meaning you have to alternate zoom or accept less dramatic macro shots.

Canon ELPH 310 HS front Canon ELPH 310 HS screen back Kodak M380 front Kodak M380 screen back

Personally, I found Canon's macro quite fun in practice, able to capture insects’ eyes or flower petal details crisply, while Kodak’s macro shots were softer and less punchy.

Stabilization, Shutter Speeds, and Flash: Controlling the Image in Challenging Conditions

Canon includes Optical Image Stabilization (OIS), which helps counteract handshake and produces sharper images particularly when shooting telephoto or in low light. This is a notable advantage over Kodak, which lacks any stabilization system.

Shutter speed ranges between the two differ:

• Canon offers 15 seconds to 1/2000s
• Kodak runs from 4 seconds to approximately 1/1448s

For night and astrophotography enthusiasts, the longer Canon shutter enables star trails or light painting, while Kodak’s max 4-second shutter restricts long exposures significantly.

Built-in flashes on both are functional but modest - Canon’s flashes excel at covering around 4 meters effectively versus Kodak’s 2.5 meters. The Canon’s flash modes include slow sync and red-eye reduction, giving creative options for ambient-lit portraits, while Kodak sticks to standard modes.

Video Capabilities: Levels of Multimedia Flexibility

Canon ELPH 310 HS is a clear winner here, offering Full HD 1080p video at 24 fps and HD 720p at 30 fps. Its H.264 compression ensures relatively high-quality footage, making it suitable for casual videography and family moments.

Kodak’s video maxes out at 640x480 resolution, which by even 2009 standards was low and today hardly usable beyond nostalgia or small-screen sharing.

Neither camera has microphone or headphone ports - typical for this camera class - so audio is basic onboard-only.

Battery Life and Storage: Practicalities That Count

Canon uses an NB-4L battery rated around 210 shots per charge - modest but in line with ultracompact norms. Kodak’s battery details are less clear, using the rechargeable KLIC-7003 battery, but anecdotal testing and user reports suggest a similar or slightly lower endurance.

Both cameras accept SD/SDHC/SDXC cards and have just a single slot, no dual card backup.

Connectivity: Little Room for Wireless Fancy

Neither camera supports Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC. Canon does have HDMI output, allowing you to display photos and videos on HDTVs, a plus for casual sharing. Kodak does not include HDMI, limiting connectivity options.

For enthusiasts wanting tethering or instant sharing capabilities, neither camera will satisfy, but that omission is expected in their budget categories.

Putting It All Together: How Do These Cameras Fare Across Genres?

Let’s break down their respective strengths and shortcomings by photography type.

Portraits: Skin Tones, Bokeh, Eye Detection

Canon’s face detection autofocus and slightly faster AF offer better reliability when capturing portraits, producing pleasing skin tones and less noise at moderate ISOs. Its wider 28mm wide end helps for environmental portraits, and optical stabilization enhances handheld results.

Kodak lacks face detection and has slower autofocus, making portraits less crisp and sometimes prone to focus misses. The narrower zoom means tighter framing if you want candid wider shots.

Neither camera produces very creamy bokeh due to small sensor size and fixed lens aperture, so don’t expect DSLR-like background blur.

Landscapes: Dynamic Range, Resolution, Weather Sealing

Canon’s newer CMOS sensor and higher resolution deliver better dynamic range, crucial for nuanced skies and shadows. Its exposure flexibility with longer shutter speeds aids in creative landscape composition.

Kodak feels dated with lower resolution, limited ISO range, and shallower shutterspeed range, producing flatter images under challenging light.

Neither have weather sealing - neither is designed for serious outdoor abuse without additional protection.

Wildlife: Autofocus Speed, Telephoto Reach, Burst Rates

Canon’s longer 224mm telephoto and faster AF plus 3fps burst rate give it modest wildlife capability for large animals or distant birds in good light.

Kodak’s shorter 190mm and weaker AF system hamper capture of fast movement and detail.

Neither will replace a dedicated telephoto or mirrorless system, but Canon is better suited to casual wildlife experimentation.

Sports: Tracking Accuracy, Low Light, Frame Rates

Canon wins here with 3fps continuous shooting and AF tracking. Low-light ISO performance allows some play indoors or dusk shots.

Kodak’s lack of AF tracking, slower max shutter, and reduced ISO range make sports shooting frustrating.

Street Photography: Discreteness, Low Light, Portability

Both cameras are pocket-friendly and visually unobtrusive.

Canon’s better high ISO control and stabilization support low light street scenes more capably. Kodak is bulkier and noisier at high ISOs, limiting night street use.

Macro: Magnification, Focusing Precision, Stabilization

Canon’s 1cm close focusing and stabilization makes macro fun and rewarding.

Kodak’s 10cm minimum focus limits creative close-ups significantly.

Night and Astro: High ISO and Exposure Modes

Canon with ISO up to 3200, 15s shutter speed, and OIS can deliver respectable night photography.

Kodak maxes at ISO 1600 and 4s shutter - limited for astrophotography or low light long exposure.

Video: Recording Specs and Audio

Canon’s Full HD video is functional for casual users; Kodak’s VGA video is largely outdated.

Neither support external microphones - so video audio quality is basic.

Travel: Versatility, Battery Life, Size/Weight

Canon’s wider zoom range, OIS, lighter weight and HDMI output make it a better travel companion.

Kodak’s simpler controls and budget price may appeal to very casual travelers with minimal needs.

Professional Workflows: Reliability, File Formats, Integration

Neither supports RAW - limiting post-processing flexibility severely.

Canon’s better file quality and video specs benefit professionals on a shoestring budget, but both fall short of advanced workflow needs.

The Final Scorecard: Objective Ratings and Value

Who Should Pick Which?

• Choose Canon ELPH 310 HS if:

  • You want a compact, versatile camera for travel, portraits, and casual wildlife/sports.
  • You value strong image stabilization and video capability.
  • You’re okay with spending a higher budget (~$400 range) for better performance and portability.
  • You care about macro photography or night shots.

• Choose Kodak EasyShare M380 if:

  • You’re seeking a very affordable, no-frills point-and-shoot.
  • You prioritize simplicity over advanced features.
  • Budget constraints push you under $200.
  • Your photography needs are casual snapshots without video or action.

Closing Thoughts: Is There Still Life For These Ultracompacts?

In 2024’s mirrorless and smartphone-dominated arena, ultracompacts like the Canon ELPH 310 HS and Kodak M380 feel nostalgic yet still relevant for niche users. The Canon holds up surprisingly well thanks to its technical edge and balanced feature set - ideal for enthusiasts wanting a pocket camera that punches above its weight. Kodak’s M380, while dated, can still serve as a stepping stone for beginners wanting something user-friendly without complexity.

If I were to carry just one today (and my smartphone wasn’t an option), the Canon ELPH 310 HS would be my pick without hesitation. It’s a proven performer that marries portability, image quality, and practical features in a neat package.

Happy shooting - and may your next snap be the best yet!

Canon ELPH 310 HS front Canon ELPH 310 HS screen back Kodak M380 front Kodak M380 screen back