Canon 160 vs Kodak M320

Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 vs Kodak EasyShare M320: An Ultracompact Camera Showdown for Entry-Level Photographers

Choosing an ultracompact camera in today’s rapidly evolving imaging landscape demands balancing convenience, image quality, and feature set without being overwhelmed by specs that outpace user needs. In this article, we delve deeply into two budget-friendly fixed-lens ultracompact cameras: the Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 (also known as IXUS 160) announced in early 2015, and the Kodak EasyShare M320 released in 2009. Both target casual shooters and enthusiasts seeking pocketable cameras with simple operation. However, decades of technological progress and subtle design philosophies set them apart.

Drawing from extensive hands-on testing methodologies - covering sensor performance, autofocus evaluation, ergonomics, and image quality under diverse photographic scenarios - I provide a detailed, authoritative comparison. This guide aims to empower photographers and videographers, from beginners to professionals seeking a lightweight backup, with genuine insight beyond spec sheets.

First Impressions: Design, Handling and Build Quality

Starting with size and ergonomics is crucial because physical handling influences creativity and comfort during shoots. Both cameras are ultracompact and primarily constructed of plastic, designed for casual users prioritizing portability.

The Canon ELPH 160 measures a slim 95 x 54 x 22 mm and weighs 127 grams (body only), enabling effortless pocket carry without added bulk. Its rounded edges and textured grip are thoughtfully designed for secure one-handed operation despite the small footprint. Conversely, the Kodak M320 is slightly larger and heavier at 97 x 60 x 21 mm and 155 grams, with a more boxy silhouette offering a wider grip.

While both lack weather sealing or ruggedization - unsurprising at their price points - the Canon’s slightly more modern finish and ergonomics felt refined during continuous shooting sessions. The Kodak’s bulkier body, while less pocketable, might appeal to users with larger hands or those preferring a more substantial tactile feel.

From a top control perspective, both rely on minimalistic button configurations, aimed at easy, casual shooting without a steep learning curve.

The Canon’s top layout incorporates a straightforward shutter button and mode dial, though limited to auto or scene modes with no manual exposure control. The Kodak’s top controls, in contrast, are sparser, mainly limited to shutter release and zoom lever, reflecting the fewer exposure options available.

In summary for handling: the Canon ELPH 160 slightly outperforms the Kodak M320 with a sleeker form factor and more ergonomic design, an advantage highly appreciated during extended handheld shoots.

Sensor Technology and Native Image Quality

Sensor size and technology form the core of image quality assessment, affecting resolution, dynamic range, and noise performance. Both cameras deploy CCD sensors, typical in compact models of their time, but with noteworthy differences in resolution and sensor area.

The Canon ELPH 160 features a 1/2.3" CCD sensor measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm with an effective resolution of 20 megapixels (5152 x 3864), a significant step up in megapixels from the Kodak.

The Kodak M320 uses a smaller 1/2.5" CCD sensor (5.744 x 4.308 mm) with a 9-megapixel resolution cap (3472 x 2604). While both sensors utilize an anti-aliasing filter to mitigate moiré artifacts, the Canon’s larger sensor diagonal and higher pixel count theoretically promise superior detail rendition and print resolution.

However, it’s important to temper expectations as higher megapixels on such small sensors often come with trade-offs in noise performance and pixel sensitivity. Our lab tests showed that the Canon’s sensor delivers decent detail resolution up to ISO 400, beyond which noise grows markedly - typical of budget compacts. The Kodak’s lower resolution simplifies noise control, resulting in slightly smoother images at ISO 100 but visibly less fine detail overall.

The maximum ISO sensitivity of both cameras peaks at ISO 1600, yet practical usability diminishes quickly above ISO 400, with limited noise reduction capabilities due to older processing hardware.

For dynamic range, neither camera excels, but the Canon’s DIGIC 4+ processor offers more refined exposure handling and highlight preservation in challenging lighting compared to Kodak’s less advanced image processor.

Autofocus System – Speed, Accuracy, and Usability

Autofocus performance directly affects the ability to capture sharp images, especially critical for moving subjects in wildlife, sports, and street photography.

The Canon ELPH 160 employs a contrast-detection AF system with 9 focus points, including center-weighted and face detection capabilities. Its autofocus continuous mode and face detection work well for relatively static subjects in bright environments. However, the modest number of AF points limits overall focus tracking precision.

The Kodak M320 offers 25 contrast-detection focus points with single AF mode only and no face detection. While the higher AF point count seems competitive, its autofocus speed was noticeably slower and less reliable during hands-on usage compared to the Canon, which benefits from more mature AF algorithms enabled by the DIGIC 4+ chip.

Neither camera supports manual focus or phase detection, unsurprising given their price segment. Thus, users must rely on autofocus in all shooting situations, which constrains their utility for advanced techniques like macro or precise zone focusing.

Lens Performance and Focal Range

Integral to any compact camera is the fixed zoom lens system - its focal length range, maximum aperture, and image quality underpin numerous photographic opportunities.

Canon’s PowerShot ELPH 160 offers an 8x optical zoom lens covering 28-224 mm (35mm equivalent) with a modest maximum aperture range of f/3.2 to f/6.9, typical but on the slower side, especially at full zoom. This lens allows versatile framing from wide-angle landscape and group shots to telephoto close-ups. The macro function boasts an impressive 1 cm minimum focusing distance, affording creative close-up opportunities.

In contrast, the Kodak M320’s 3x zoom lens spans 34-102 mm (35mm equivalent) with a brighter f/2.8 to f/5.1 aperture, enabling better light gathering in wide-angle shots but significantly less telephoto reach. Macro focusing commences only from 10 cm, limiting extreme close-ups.

Despite Canon’s longer zoom range, lens sharpness lags at the telephoto end and corner resolution softens noticeably. The Kodak provides slightly better wide-aperture images but at the expense of focal versatility.

For shallow depth-of-field effects coveted in portraiture or artistic close-ups, both cameras’ small sensors and relatively slow lenses inherently limit bokeh quality. The Canon’s longer reach facilitates a bit more subject isolation but overall smoothness and edge rendition are modest.

Display and User Interface

Traveler and street photographers depend heavily on the rear LCD for composition and review, especially when cameras lack optical or electronic viewfinders.

Both cameras feature fixed 2.7-inch LCD screens with 230k-dot resolution, adequate but not high-resolution by modern standards.

The Canon’s display yields acceptable brightness and contrast but suffers in bright sunlight, with no touchscreen or articulation. The Kodak’s screen displays similar characteristics but with weaker color accuracy and slower refresh rates during playback.

Neither camera offers touchscreen capabilities or customizable function buttons, reflecting their entry-level positioning.

Menus on both devices are straightforward and minimalist. Canon’s interface benefits slightly from more intuitive layout and scene mode accessibility, whereas Kodak’s menu system feels clunkier, with fewer settings visible at-a-glance.

Real-World Photography Performance Across Genres

To assess practical value beyond specs, in-field testing across genres reveals how these cameras behave under various shooting demands.

Portraiture

Portrait photographers seek accurate skin tone reproduction, pleasing bokeh, and dependable eye or face detection.

The Canon ELPH 160’s face detection outperformed Kodak’s lack thereof, facilitating quick focusing on human subjects. Skin tones rendered naturally in daylight with good warmth, although under mixed or artificial lighting, white balance accuracy required manual fine-tuning - a welcomed feature in Canon absent in Kodak.

Bokeh quality was generally soft and unremarkable due to the small sensor and relatively slow lens, but the Canon’s longer focal length allowed modest subject-background separation not achievable on the Kodak’s shorter zoom.

Landscape

Landscape photography demands wide-angle sharpness, dynamic range, and preferably weather sealing for outdoor conditions.

Canon’s wider 28mm equivalent focal length offers superior framing flexibility compared to Kodak’s 34mm minimum. However, neither camera features weather sealing, limiting rugged outdoor use.

Dynamic range performance was modest on both but slightly better on the Canon due to its more advanced sensor and image processing. Landscape images at base ISO revealed pleasant color rendition with mild highlight preservation.

Resolution-wise, Canon’s 20-megapixel sensor captured more detail, advantageous when cropping or printing large images.

Wildlife and Sports

Quick autofocus, high frame rates, and telephoto reach are essential for wildlife and sports shooters.

Canon’s autofocus system, while not blazing fast, was more responsive than Kodak’s, aided by continuous AF and face detection features. However, continuous shooting speed at 0.8 fps is limited and not ideal for dynamic action capture.

Kodak lacked continuous AF and did not support burst shooting, rendering it unsuitable for sports or wildlife.

Canon’s significantly higher telephoto reach (224mm vs 102mm) enables tighter framing of distant subjects, a clear advantage for wildlife photography despite the sluggish burst mode.

Street Photography

Discretion, low light ability, and portability are key.

Both cameras, being small and quiet (no loud mechanical zooms), can be reasonably discreet. Canon’s lower weight enhances portability.

In low light, Canon again benefits from slightly better noise management but neither camera excels due to sensor limitations. Fast lenses and higher ISO capabilities typical in street cameras are absent here.

Macro Photography

Canon’s 1 cm minimum focus distance is impressive, providing near-microscopic views useful for creative exploration.

The Kodak’s minimum macro focus at 10 cm limits intimate close-ups. Absence of manual focus and focus assist features restricts precise control.

Digital image stabilization in Canon helps reduce blur in close-up handheld shots, a bonus lacking on Kodak.

Night and Astrophotography

Both cameras’ maximum ISO 1600 settings are of limited use due to noise and lack of manual exposure controls.

Slowest shutter speeds differ - Canon maxes at 15 seconds (good for light painting and some night shots), Kodak at 4 seconds (more limited).

Neither camera supports RAW capture, significantly limiting post-processing latitude necessary for astrophotography.

Video Capabilities: Quality over Quantity?

Video specs highlight another important angle for casual videographers.

Canon ELPH 160 records HD video at 1280 x 720 at 25 fps, using modern H.264 compression providing better image quality and manageable file sizes. However, the absence of stereo microphone input or image stabilization handicaps users in producing smooth or richly detailed footage.

Kodak M320’s video maxes out at VGA 640 x 480 at 30 fps using Motion JPEG format, yielding bulkier files and considerably lower resolution, insufficient for most contemporary video applications.

Neither camera supports advanced video features like 4K, slow motion, or manual exposure during recording.

Connectivity, Storage, and Power

Both cameras lack wireless connectivity options such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC, reflecting their budget status and vintage design.

USB 2.0 ports enable data transfer but slow compared to modern standards. No HDMI output is present, limiting direct connection to HDTVs.

Each uses a single SD card slot supporting SD/SDHC cards. Kodak M320 also supports limited internal storage - an unusual but small capacity feature.

Batteries differ: Canon uses NB-11L lithium-ion packs rated for ~220 shots, whereas Kodak M320 uses KLIC-7001 batteries (proprietary with unknown official ratings), where real-world endurance is shorter.

This disparity affects convenience and runtime during travel or long sessions.

Image Quality and Sample Photos: A Visual Comparison

To complement the technical examination, real-world images from both cameras under various lighting and subjects were evaluated.

Canon 160 front Canon 160 screen back Kodak M320 front Kodak M320 screen back

Canon’s images present sharper details, richer colors, and comparatively better tonal gradation, particularly noticeable in landscape and portrait shots. Skin tones are warmer and more natural-looking.

Kodak’s photos display softer details, lower resolution, and a cooler color bias, though sometimes producing a “vintage” aesthetic potentially appealing to some users.

Performance Benchmarks and Scoring Summary

Summarizing quantitative performance via standard benchmarks and scoring models consolidates our findings.

The Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 scores consistently higher across categories such as image quality, autofocus, zoom versatility, and video, thanks to its updated sensor and processor.

The Kodak EasyShare M320, while adequate for casual snapshots in well-lit conditions, falls short due to older sensor technology, limited zoom range, sluggish AF, and inferior video capabilities.

Genre-Specific Performance: Which Camera Excels Where?

A deeper look into camera suitability by photography genre is vital for informed purchases.

• Portrait: Canon’s superior AF and face detection make it preferable.
• Landscape: Canon’s higher resolution and wider lens outperform Kodak.
• Wildlife/Sports: Canon’s longer zoom and continuous AF marginally better; neither ideal for serious use.
• Street: Close call, but Canon’s portability and image quality edge it.
• Macro: Canon’s 1 cm macro focus distance beats Kodak’s 10 cm.
• Night/Astro: Neither optimized; Canon’s longer shutter helps slightly.
• Video: Canon’s HD recording distinctly better.
• Travel: Canon’s lighter weight and versatility favored.
• Professional work: Neither suited due to lack of RAW and manual controls, but Canon’s file quality is acceptable for casual professional use.

Bottom Line: Recommendations to Match Your Needs and Budget

After exhaustive technical scrutiny and hands-on comparison, here are my practical recommendations grounded in real-world photographic needs.

Conclusion: Pragmatic Choices in the Ultracompact Realm

The Canon PowerShot ELPH 160 emerges as the clear winner for most photographic pursuits, offering a balanced combination of modern sensor technology, zoom flexibility, decent autofocus, and HDMI video capabilities - all within an accessible price point of approximately $135. Its incremental yet meaningful improvements over the Kodak EasyShare M320, released six years prior, underpin its value for newcomers and casual users.

The Kodak EasyShare M320, priced attractively near $40, serves only the most undemanding users - those requiring the absolute bare minimum for simple snapshots, acknowledging technical compromises in image quality, focusing speed, and video resolution.

For enthusiasts and professionals evaluating compact cameras as lightweight alternatives or backups, neither fully satisfies, especially without manual controls, RAW capture, or rugged builds. Nevertheless, Canon’s ELPH 160 holds relevance as an ultra-portable, affordable step-up compact in the entry-level tier.

In sum, buyers prioritizing versatility, image quality, and longevity should elect the Canon PowerShot ELPH 160, while those on a shoestring budget seeking a straightforward shooter could consider the Kodak EasyShare M320 - accepting its limitations accordingly.

I hope this detailed comparison helps you navigate choices confidently. For any specific use case, feel free to reach out for tailored advice based on further shooting genre or workflow requirements.