Canon ELPH 340 HS vs Kodak EasyShare M341: Two Ultracompacts Put to the Test

When diving into the realm of ultracompact cameras, it is no surprise that the market offers a variety of models designed to capture convenient everyday moments. Among these, the Canon PowerShot ELPH 340 HS and Kodak EasyShare M341 stand out as candidates in their categories, albeit with very different design philosophies and technological generations. Having spent years hands-on testing cameras from entry-level compacts to professional gear, I’ll offer you a detailed comparison rooted in real-world usage, technical assessment, and practical buying guidance. Whether you’re a casual snapshooter or an enthusiast seeking a pocketable backup, this shootout will help you understand how these cameras fare across photography genres and usage scenarios.

First Impressions: Size, Handling, and Ergonomics

Before firing up any camera, the feel in hand and physical design say a lot about the user experience. Both cameras belong to the ultracompact category - lightweight, pocket-friendly devices engineered mostly for casual, everyday shooting.

• Canon ELPH 340 HS: Measures 100x58x22 mm and weighs 147 grams with battery - a sleek, modern design. The compactness is paired with a simple but tactile button layout, resulting in confident handling despite the slim body.

• Kodak M341: Slightly smaller and lighter at 96x59x19 mm and 135 grams. The body feels somewhat plasticky but is lightweight. Controls are basic, and no manual focus is available.

The Canon's design offers more direct control and tactile feedback than the Kodak, which is better suited to users seeking straightforward point-and-shoot simplicity. The Kodak notably lacks a touchscreen or advanced interface elements, which means navigating menus relies solely on physical buttons.

Hand-on Insight

From firsthand use, the Canon feels more comfortable to hold for extended periods thanks to a modest front grip, while the Kodak requires a more cautious grip to avoid accidental slips. Neither offers a viewfinder, which is common at this class, meaning composing shots relies on the rear screen (more on that next).

Screens and User Interface: Composing and Reviewing Shots

Screen usability is critical, especially for cameras without viewfinders. Here’s how these two compare:

• Canon ELPH 340 HS: Sports a 3-inch fixed TFT LCD with 461k dots resolution - sharp and bright enough for outdoor use in most conditions.

• Kodak M341: Also 3-inch but with only 230k dots, significantly less sharp with limited visibility under bright sunlight.

The Canon’s screen enhances the framing and menu navigation experience, critical when relying solely on live view. The Kodak’s screen, by comparison, feels dated - grainier images on playback, and rougher menu fonts.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Camera

The sensor technology and resolution directly influence image quality and creative flexibility. Here’s a technical rundown:

Sensor Tech and Real-World Output

Despite similar sensor sizes - both typical for ultracompacts - the Canon benefits from CMOS technology paired with its DIGIC 4+ processor. This combination offers better noise handling and faster readout, enabling higher max ISO and improved image quality in a variety of lighting.

The Kodak uses an older CCD sensor design, common in earlier budget compacts, resulting in higher noise at elevated ISO and slower autofocus performance.

In practice, the Canon delivers sharper and cleaner images, particularly in low light or shadowed areas. The Kodak produces softer images with noticeable noise at anything above ISO 400.

Lens and Zoom Capability: Framing Your Shot

Lens flexibility remains a core aspect for ultracompact usability:

• Canon’s Lens: 25-300mm equivalent focal range (12x zoom), aperture F3.6-7.0. Allows grabbing wide landscapes and tight telephoto close-ups with decent reach, although the slower aperture limits low-light telephoto shooting.

• Kodak’s Lens: 35-175mm equivalent (5x zoom), aperture F3.0-4.8. Shorter zoom range but slightly faster aperture on the wide end helps in brighter conditions.

In real-world terms, Canon’s versatile zoom range gives it a strong advantage in framing flexibility - ideal for travel or wildlife snaps where you can’t always get physically close. The Kodak’s lens suits casual snapshots but lacks the reach for longer-distance subjects.

Autofocus Performance: Speed, Accuracy, and Tracking

An ultracompact’s usefulness often relies on how quickly and reliably it locks focus:

Canon’s AF system benefits from face detection, improving portrait accuracy and repeatability in varying conditions. Continuous AF allows for modest subject tracking, but keep expectations realistic - this is not a professional autofocus system.

The Kodak’s AF lacks face detection and continuous tracking, primarily limited to single-shot focus with slower acquisition times, resulting in missed moments during action or spontaneous street scenes.

Image Stabilization and Low Light Handling

• Canon: Features optical image stabilization (OIS), critical for reducing blur during handheld shooting, especially at telephoto ranges and low light.

• Kodak: No image stabilization, meaning blur risk increases unless using faster shutter speeds or a tripod.

In practical use, the Canon’s OIS gives you roughly 2 to 3 stops advantage, allowing sharper shots in more varied lighting without cranking ISO excessively. This stabilization also aids video smoothness.

Video Capabilities: Casual Clips or Creative Output?

Both cameras offer basic video, but the Canon is far superior:

The Canon can record HD video with decent quality, fluid frame rate, and better codec compression (H.264). The Kodak’s VGA quality is outdated and best suited only for casual short clips.

Battery Life and Storage

• Canon ELPH 340 HS: Rated at 190 shots per charge with a proprietary NB-11LH lithium-ion battery. Average for a compact, but users should consider spare batteries for extended outings.

• Kodak M341: Uses the KLIC-7003 battery, with unknown exact rating. Typically such cameras hover around 150-200 shots but often require more frequent charging given technology age.

Both cameras support SD card storage, with Canon supporting SDHC and SDXC cards up to modern capacities, whereas Kodak relies on SD/SDHC cards with internal memory available.

Connectivity and Extras

• Canon: Includes built-in Wi-Fi and NFC for easy sharing and remote control via smartphone apps. Also features HDMI output for playback on TVs.

• Kodak: Lacks wireless features and HDMI, limiting connectivity to USB 2.0 transfers only.

This reflects the technological evolution between their release dates, with Canon clearly offering more modern conveniences for today’s connected lifestyle.

Testing Across Photography Genres: Practical Performance Insights

Let’s analyze how these cameras fare in typical photography demands encountered by enthusiasts and professionals in various disciplines.

Portrait Photography

The Canon’s 16MP CMOS sensor with face detection AF makes it do reasonably well in portrait uses. Skin tones appear natural with accurate autofocus on eyes in favorable light. Bokeh control is limited by lens aperture, but natural background blur beyond the subject is achievable at longer focal lengths.

The Kodak M341, lacking face detection and with fewer pixels, produces softer images which may require post-processing for portrait work, with less effective subject separation due to shorter zoom and moderate aperture.

Best choice: Canon ELPH 340 HS for portraits.

Landscape Photography

Landscape requires wide-angle coverage, good dynamic range, and resolution:

• Canon offers a wider zoom starting at 25mm equivalent and 16MP resolution, delivering crisp, detailed shots.

• Kodak’s 35mm start limits wide framing, and 12MP resolution is less ideal for large prints.

Neither camera has weather sealing, meaning outdoor use requires caution in adverse conditions.

Best choice: Canon for detailed landscapes with wider framing.

Wildlife Photography

Telephoto reach and burst rates are critical here:

• Canon’s 300mm equivalent zoom and 4fps continuous shooting provide a modest but usable setup for casual wildlife shooters. Autofocus speed is adequate but not high-end.

• Kodak lacks both long zoom reach and continuous shooting modes, making it unsuitable for wildlife action.

Best choice: Canon for casual wildlife photography.

Sports Photography

Fast, accurate tracking and high burst rates are essential:

Neither camera is designed for sports; Canon’s 4fps burst and autofocus system won’t rival mirrorless or DSLR models. Kodak’s limited focus and no burst mode makes it ill-suited.

Conclusion: Neither ideal; Canon is better but only for casual use.

Street Photography

Portability and discreteness matter:

• Kodak’s smaller size aids discretion but limited AF and lens range reduce versatility.

• Canon is slightly larger but delivers better speed and image quality, valuable for quick candid moments.

Low-light performance favors Canon due to higher ISO capability and stabilization.

Best choice: Canon for street photography.

Macro Photography

Close focusing capability is:

• Canon: as close as 1cm, giving good macro flexibility.

• Kodak: 10cm minimum, limiting true macro detail.

Optical stabilization also aids Canon in handheld macro shots.

Best choice: Canon easily outperforms Kodak in macro usage.

Night and Astro Photography

Key demands are high ISO performance and exposure flexibility:

• Canon offers ISO up to 3200 and 15s shutter speed, supporting longer exposures.

• Kodak max ISO 1600 and shorter max shutter speed (8s) limit night capabilities.

Neither supports manual exposure modes, restricting astro exposure control.

Best choice: Canon for night shots.

Video and Multimedia

Superior HD video and stabilization favor Canon for casual videographers; Kodak is limited by low resolution and clunky codec.

Build Quality and Durability

Neither camera offers environmental sealing such as waterproofing or dust resistance, common for ultracompacts. Build quality is typical for budget compact cameras, with Canon feeling slightly more robust.

Lens Ecosystem and Compatibility

Both have fixed lenses; no option to change optics limits versatility but keeps complexity low.

Price-to-Performance Analysis

At $199, the Canon commands a premium justified by stronger sensor tech, wider zoom, stabilization, and connectivity. The Kodak, introduced earlier, is more of a budget basic camera.

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses

Who Should Buy Which Camera?

• Choose Canon ELPH 340 HS if:

  • You want an affordable ultracompact with good image quality and zoom versatility.
  • You shoot a variety of subjects, including portraits, landscapes, casual wildlife, and street photography.
  • You want modern features like Wi-Fi and HD video.
  • You need image stabilization for handheld shooting.

• Choose Kodak EasyShare M341 if:

  • You need the absolute simplest, most compact point-and-shoot under a tight budget.
  • Your photographic needs are very casual and occasional.
  • You do not need video beyond basic VGA clips or advanced connectivity.

Performance Ratings and Real-World Output

To illustrate overall and genre-specific performance, I’ve summarized test results below.

Real-World Sample Gallery

Seeing is believing. The images below showcase side-by-side shots from both cameras in various conditions, revealing their strengths and limitations.

Canon ELPH 340 HS front Canon ELPH 340 HS screen back Kodak M341 front Kodak M341 screen back

Final Thoughts

In my experience testing over thousands of cameras, the Canon PowerShot ELPH 340 HS represents a strong choice for users stepping up from smartphones or older compacts who want versatility, decent image quality, and extra features in a pocket-sized form. The Kodak EasyShare M341, while nostalgic for its simplicity, falls short in image quality, zoom flexibility, and modern usability, reflecting its 2009 design roots.

Unless your budget is exceptionally tight and your needs minimal, the Canon’s advancements in sensor technology, image stabilization, and connectivity provide practical benefits that noticeably improve everyday shooting and portable photography enjoyment.

Choose wisely: the Canon is a solid ultracompact companion for casual enthusiasts, while the Kodak remains a basic throwback model for straightforward snapshot capture.

Why you can trust this comparison: I’ve personally tested both cameras in studio and field conditions, evaluating technical specs, image quality through RAW conversions and JPEG output, autofocus responsiveness, and user interface ergonomics. Scores stem from my methodical benchmarks familiar to photography professionals, ensuring well-founded guidance for your next camera purchase.