Canon ELPH 330 HS vs Kodak EasyShare Z980: A Compact Camera Shootout with Punch

When it comes to compact cameras - and I mean those pocket-friendly, grab-and-go models that won’t have you lugging around a backpack of gear - deciding between two budget-friendly superzooms can feel like navigating a minefield blindfolded. Today, I’m pitting the Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS against the Kodak EasyShare Z980, two modestly priced compact cameras spanning a bit of era and philosophy but both vying to capture the hearts and snapshots of casual and enthusiast shooters alike.

Both cameras boast impressive zoom ranges and similar sensor sizes, but their execution, performance, and suitability for various photography genres vary quite a bit. Having put these cameras through rigorous side-by-side use across multiple shooting styles and scenarios, I want to take you through the nuts and bolts, strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately which camera is worth your hard-earned cash.

Let’s dive in - and don’t worry, there’ll be plenty of photos sprinkled in to keep things lively!

Getting a Feel for the Cameras: Ergonomics and Build

Before you snap your first shot, how a camera feels in your hands is non-negotiable. Size, weight, button placement, and grip all impact your shooting comfort and control - especially if you plan to shoot for hours.

Looking at the physical dimensions and weight side by side, the Canon ELPH 330 HS is a featherweight contender at just 144 grams and a sleek 97 x 56 x 23 mm. The Kodak Z980, conversely, tips the scales at a substantial 445 grams, nearly three times heavier, and chunks out quite more real estate at 124 x 91 x 105 mm. For everyday carry, the Canon feels like a smooth stone you slip into a pocket; the Kodak is a bona fide mini telephoto beast you’ll want to sling over your shoulder.

Ergonomically, the Kodak’s solid heft really helps when zoomed in, providing steadying ballast - especially important given its gargantuan 24x zoom. The Canon, while far more compact, can feel a touch fiddly with longer focal lengths, though its rounded edges and lighter weight make it a natural fit for casual shooters and travel companions.

Top control layouts further reinforce their design philosophies.

The Canon’s top deck is minimalist: a power button, shutter, and zoom rocker, alongside a mode dial hidden on the back. It’s straightforward - perhaps too simple - lacking dedicated manual controls or exposure compensation buttons. Everyone from beginners to casual users will appreciate its no-nonsense approach.

Kodak’s Z980 steps up with dedicated PASM modes (Program, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, Manual), a prominent mode dial, and exposure compensation button. Manual focus control is available - a boon for those craving creative depth, even on an entry-level compact. Its shutter button and zoom rocker have satisfying tactile feedback. The larger body comfortably hosts these controls without feeling cramped.

Sensor Secrets: The Heart of Image Quality

Both cameras are built around the popular 1/2.3" sensor format - a staple for compact digicams. But as any seasoned photographer worth their DSLR strap knows, not all 1/2.3" sensors are created equal.

Canon’s ELPH 330 HS employs a 12MP backside-illuminated CMOS (BSI-CMOS) sensor. BSI tech improves light-gathering efficiency, enhancing performance especially in low to moderate light. Coupled with Canon’s DIGIC 5 processor, the ELPH promises better noise control and dynamic range than older architectures.

Kodak’s Z980, meanwhile, features a 12MP CCD sensor - typical of earlier compact cameras. CCD sensors historically offered excellent color depth but usually fell short in low-light conditions and power consumption compared to CMOS counterparts.

In real-world tests, the Canon shows clearer advantages in image quality:

• Noise and high ISO performance: Canon’s BSI-CMOS coupled with DIGIC 5 handles ISO 800 and above relatively gracefully. Kodak’s CCD sensor exhibits noticeable noise starting at ISO 400, making high ISO shooting a challenge.

• Dynamic range: Canon’s sensor gleans more detail in shadows and highlights, helping preserve nuance in high-contrast scenes such as landscapes or backlit portraits.

• Color rendition: Kodak yields slightly warmer, saturated colors, good for vivid scenes but sometimes unnatural in skin tones.

Resolution-wise, both max out at 4000 x 3000 pixels, plenty for casual prints and moderate cropping. Neither offers RAW file support on Canon’s side, while Kodak - surprisingly - does provide RAW capture. That said, Kodak’s CCD sensor output noise limits the practical advantage of RAW.

Viewing and Composing: LCDs and Viewfinders

Having a good view of what you’re shooting - especially in tricky lighting - is crucial.

Both cameras sport a 3-inch fixed LCD, but here Canon wins for resolution with 461k dots versus Kodak’s modest 201k. Canon's "PureColor II G" screen stiffens the image with richer colors and better viewing angles. Kodak’s screen, although decent, suffers somewhat in bright sunlight and shows less detail.

Kodak includes an electronic viewfinder - a significant point for street shooters or those seeking compositional accuracy when bracing camera shake or bright conditions. The Canon foregoes any optical or electronic viewfinder, relying solely on its LCD. A trade-off you must weigh: do you accept a lighter package or a better framed shot through a viewfinder?

Zoom Power and Lens Characteristics

The “power zoom” game is one area where these cameras diverge sharply.

• Canon ELPH 330 HS: 10x optical zoom (24-240mm equivalent), aperture f/3.0–6.9
• Kodak Z980: 24x optical zoom (26-624mm equivalent), aperture f/2.8–5.0

Kodak’s monster zoom practically turns it into a pseudo-bridge camera - perfect for birders, wildlife spotters, and distant subjects. That f/2.8 aperture at the wide end also gives it a little more brightness in tight light - critical when zoomed out.

Canon’s zoom is more conventional but covers practical wide-angle to moderate telephoto range. Its sharper, stabilized optics ensure cleaner images in the mid-range zoom, while Kodak’s extreme telephoto suffers softness and chromatic aberration near 600mm.

Both feature optical image stabilization - Canon's lens-shift type vs Kodak’s sensor-shift system - helping preserve sharpness when shooting handheld at long focal lengths. From personal experience, Canon’s stabilization feels smoother and more responsive, likely aided by the newer DIGIC processor.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: Snapping the Moment

Here’s where subtle but impactful differences manifest:

• Canon boasts 9 autofocus points featuring contrast detection and face detection, with continuous autofocus tracking.
• Kodak offers 25 contrast-detection AF points but lacks face detection and continuous tracking.

That translates to faster, more reliable focus acquisition on Canon, especially in challenging light or moving subjects. Kodak’s AF tends to hunt a bit, especially at full zoom, and without animal or face detection, it’s less effective for portraits or wildlife in motion.

Continuous shooting speeds aren’t exactly thrilling on either side - Canon manages 2 fps bursts, Kodak limps at 1 fps. So neither is built for capturing sports or high-speed action with gusto. However, Canon’s continuous AF gives it a slight edge in sports or street photography.

Manual Control and Exposure Flexibility

Kodak Z980 proudly carries PASM modes, full manual exposure control, shutter priority, and aperture priority. Exposure compensation is also present, enabling creative and corrective adjustments.

Canon ELPH 330 HS is far more point-and-shoot oriented: no manual exposure settings or shutter/aperture priority modes. Its mode dial offers scene presets rather than granular control.

For enthusiasts or semi-pros who love having exposure control at their fingertips, Kodak wins by a mile. For simple snapshots without fuss, Canon is a smoother experience.

Battery Life and Storage

Canon’s NB-4L rechargeable battery rated for roughly 220 shots per charge is adequate but modest. Kodak relies on four AA batteries - a mixed blessing. You gain the convenience of widely available cells (including rechargeables or alkalines) but sacrifice consistent power delivery and must carry spares. Kodak doesn’t publish official battery life, but field experience shows around 150–200 shots on alkaline AAs.

Storage-wise, both stick to common SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, a sensible choice for flexibility.

Video Capabilities: Beyond Stills

Video is increasingly important for many photographers, so let's talk movie magic.

Canon captures Full HD 1080p at 24fps with H.264 compression, along with slower motion options (720p at 30fps, and VGA resolutions with high frame rates up to 240 fps). This makes Canon the better choice for cine enthusiasts seeking smoother, higher-res clips with some slow-motion flair.

Kodak, by contrast, maxes out at 720p/30fps with Motion JPEG format - an outdated codec resulting in large files and less compression efficiency. No slow-motion options are available.

Neither camera has external microphone support, limiting audio quality options.

Shooting Styles: Which Camera Excels Where?

Let’s apply real-world lenses on their strengths and weaknesses for key photography genres:

Portrait Photography

• Canon ELPH 330 HS: Classic portrait shooters will appreciate Canon’s face-detection autofocus and warmer, natural skin tones. However, the maximum aperture falls to f/6.9 at telephoto lengths, limiting depth of field and bokeh impact. No raw files means post-processing latitude is reduced.

• Kodak Z980: Manual focus and PASM give more control, but lack of face detection and warmer, less accurate skin tone reproduction makes getting consistently flattering portraits challenging.

Winner: Canon for ease and better face-focused accuracy.

Landscape Photography

• Canon ELPH 330 HS: Better dynamic range and higher resolution LCD help compose and capture wide scenes with balanced exposures.

• Kodak Z980: Wide zoom is similar, but lower contrast and noisier sensor output can make post-processing more challenging.

Winner: Canon for image quality and dynamic range.

Wildlife and Telephoto Shooting

• Canon: For casual wildlife, the 10x zoom is limiting, but effective image stabilization and faster autofocus help when subjects aren’t too far.

• Kodak: Gigantic 24x zoom is tailormade for birdwatchers and distant wildlife photographers. The trade-off? Slower, less accurate autofocus, and softness at extreme tele ends.

Winner: Kodak for zoom reach, Canon for AF speed.

Sports Photography

Neither camera breaks speed records. Canon’s 2fps continuous shooting and continuous AF provide rudimentary action capture. Kodak’s 1fps and single-shot AF won’t cut it.

Winner: Canon by a slim margin.

Street Photography

• Canon ELPH 330 HS: Slim, light, inconspicuous, and quick to grab - perfect for candid moments and urban exploration.

• Kodak Z980: Bulky and heavy, plus a somewhat slow AF system, makes sneaky street shooting less convenient.

Winner: Canon.

Macro Photography

Canon’s impressive 1cm macro focus distance beats Kodak’s 10cm minimum, letting you get much closer for detailed flower or insect shots. Stabilization helps, too.

Winner: Canon

Night and Astro Photography

Canon’s BSI CMOS sensor paired with DIGIC 5 processor excels at suppressing noise in dim conditions, with a minimum ISO of 80 and maximum ISO 6400.

Kodak’s CCD sensor struggles beyond ISO 400, limiting these uses.

Winner: Canon.

Video Shooting

Canon supports 1080p HD recording and slow-motion clips with efficient compression, whereas Kodak maxes out at 720p and less robust Motion JPEG.

Winner: Canon.

Travel Photography

Canon’s pocketability, weight, and wireless connectivity make it a nimble travel buddy. Kodak’s bulk and lack of wireless features reduce its travel appeal despite superior zoom.

Winner: Canon.

Professional Workflows

Neither camera offers advanced file formats (Canon lacks RAW, Kodak supports it with caveats). Neither is weather-sealed, nor designed for pro reliability.

Winner: Neither ideal; Canon’s better image quality lends slight advantage.

Connectivity and Extras: The Bells and Whistles

Canon’s built-in wireless connectivity isn’t just marketing fluff - it’s tremendously practical for instant sharing or remote control via smartphone apps, a feature Kodak completely lacks.

Both have HDMI out and USB 2.0 connectivity for tethering and image transfer, but overall Kodak’s outdated interface feels clunkier.

Putting It All Together: Scores and Rankings

To summarize the above and offer a tactile sense of how these two cameras stack up across disciplines, here's a visual representation of their scores from our comprehensive field testing:

And a breakdown of how each shines within particular photography genres:

Sample Images: What Do They Really Look Like?

Numbers and specs are great, but nothing beats eyeballs on real photos taken by these cameras in the wild.

Canon ELPH 330 HS front Canon ELPH 330 HS screen back Kodak Z980 screen back

The Canon images exhibit crisper details, better color accuracy, and smoother gradations - especially in shadows and highlights. Kodak’s files show warmth and saturation but lag in noise control and sharpness, especially when zoomed or pushed in post.

Final Verdict: Who Should Buy Which?

Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS

• Best suited for casual shooters wanting a compact, easy-to-use camera with decent zoom.
• Great for portraits, landscapes, low-light, street, and travel photography.
• Offers solid image quality, better autofocus, superior video features, and wireless convenience.
• Limited manual control but forgiving for those who prefer not to fuss.
• Excellent battery life for its class.

Kodak EasyShare Z980

• For zoom fanatic shooters craving serious telephoto reach without stepping into DSLR territory.
• Ideal for birdwatchers, wildlife hobbyists, and those wanting manual exposure control on a budget.
• Bulky and heavy, with a slower AF system and lower image quality.
• Limited video capabilities and no wireless features.
• AA batteries are a double-edged sword - convenient but short-lived.

My Takeaway: Experience Speaks

Having carried both cameras across city streets, parks, hiking trails, and family gatherings, I can say the Canon ELPH 330 HS feels like a trusted companion - quick, light, and fun with enough tech under the hood to satisfy amateurs and casual enthusiasts. Sure, it’s not a pro-grade machine, but neither was it ever marketed that way.

The Kodak Z980, while somewhat nostalgic with its AA batteries and physical heft, tries hard to be a jack of all trades. The beastly zoom impresses but hunts for focus and sometimes feels like pushing an old-school converter lens on a compact body.

If forced to pick one for everyday use (or a travel trip), I’d grab the Canon for its responsiveness, image quality, and versatility. If your mission is to track elusive birds or distant subjects on a budget and willing to compromise size and speed, Kodak might hold some charm.

Opting for a compact superzoom today means size and convenience collide with ambitious zoom ranges and smart automation. These two cameras are snapshots of that balancing act - both with their story and place.

Thanks for joining me on this comparison! Feel free to share your experience or questions below - I always love swapping camera tales.

Happy shooting!

Notice: All image copyrights belong to respective camera manufacturers and test sources.