Canon SD1400 IS vs Kodak M590

Canon PowerShot SD1400 IS vs. Kodak M590: An Ultracompact Camera Showdown

In the ever-evolving world of ultracompact cameras, two models from 2010 stand out for their accessible features and appeal to casual photographers: the Canon PowerShot SD1400 IS and the Kodak M590. While neither targets professional-grade photographic work, they each represent a slice of that era’s consumer photographic technology. I’ve spent considerable time handling both to evaluate how their design philosophies and technical elements hold up - even more than a decade later - and to help you decide which suits your needs if you’re looking into vintage ultracompacts or entry-level cameras for simple digital photography.

Let’s break down their relative merits across size and ergonomics, imaging core, autofocus and shooting performance, usability, and specialized photographic disciplines. I’ll also weigh in on their suitability for various genres from landscape to street to macro and offer recommendations based on your priorities.

Handy and Pocketable: Size, Handling, and Controls

For many buyers of ultracompacts, physical size, shape, and handling often drive purchase decisions even more than pixel counts. Both the Canon SD1400 IS and Kodak M590 fall into the “pocket camera” bracket, but subtle differences matter.

The Canon measures 92 x 56 x 18 mm with a weight of 133g, while the Kodak is a bit chunkier at 97 x 58 x 15 mm and weight unspecified but perceptibly similar. The Canon’s slightly thicker, but narrower build translates to a slightly firmer grip in-hand, benefiting one-handed stability. The Kodak’s slimmer depth contributes to a sleeker feel but can feel a touch cramped if you don’t have small fingers.

Control-wise, the Canon offers more assured physical buttons and a well-placed mode dial around the top plate, making quick mode shifts possible without diving into menus. The Kodak’s interface is more minimalist, with smaller buttons and fewer tactile cues, making it feel somewhat more utilitarian.

Looking down from above confirms this impression:

The Canon’s Digic 4 processor and refined ergonomics reflect Canon’s mature ultracompact design philosophy circa 2010, emphasizing ease of use. Kodak’s M590 feels a bit more budget-driven, lacking some of those polished controls. For street photography or travel, securing quick access to key functions counts, and Canon has a slight edge here.

At the Heart: Sensor and Image Quality

Both cameras use CCD sensors, typical for ultracompacts of their era, though their sizes differ notably.

The Canon’s sensor is a standard 1/2.3" sensor measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm, totaling ~28.1 mm², offering 14MP resolution at 4320 x 3240 max image size. The Kodak’s sensor is smaller at 1/3" (4.8 x 3.6 mm), about 17.3 mm², also with 14MP output (4320 x 3242 resolution). Despite sharing pixel counts, the Canon's larger sensor area gives it an inherent advantage in light-gathering capacity and noise performance.

The real-world consequence: the Canon generally produces cleaner images with better dynamic range, particularly in shadow recovery and highlight retention. In low light, the SDR1400 IS can shoot up to ISO 1600 natively, although noise is significant beyond ISO 400 for practical use. The Kodak M590 boasts an aggressive boost with ISO up to 6400 claimed, but in practice, image quality rapidly degrades at anything over ISO 400 due to its smaller sensor.

Color depth was perceptually richer from the Canon as well, partly thanks to Canon's Digic 4 image processor optimizing color curves and noise reduction. Kodak’s images can appear flatter and more muted, needing more post-processing intervention for vibrancy.

If image quality is among your highest priorities in a compact package, Canon’s sensor choice and processing gain it a clear upper hand.

Focusing Systems and Shooting Performance

Ultracompacts rely heavily on contrast-detect autofocus systems given their small size and cost constraints. The Canon SD1400 IS employs a contrast-detect autofocus system with live view AF capability. Focus modes include single autofocus only - no continuous tracking or face detection. The Kodak M590’s autofocus specs are less clear, with no live view AF and manual focus absent on both models.

Neither camera features face detection or eye autofocus - a standard feature today but still emerging in 2010. Autofocus performance is correspondingly basic: contrast detection is slower and less consistent, with occasional hunting in low-contrast or low-light conditions, especially on the Kodak.

Continuous shooting speed is another practical consideration, especially for action photography. The Canon maxes out at 1 frame per second with continuous shooting - not something you’d use for sports but adequate for casual spurts. The Kodak’s specs don’t clarify continuous shooting speeds, and in testing, it performs similarly slow.

Shutter speed ranges are comparable; Canon offers 15 seconds to 1/1500s, granting some long exposure flexibility, while Kodak ranges from 8 seconds to 1/1400s, slightly more limited but still smoothing basic long exposures.

For burst photography or tracking moving subjects, neither camera is particularly suited - the Canon’s 1 fps rate is the practical ceiling, and Kodak is no better.

Viewing Experience: Screens and Interfaces

A camera’s rear screen is your window to composition, focus confirmation, and menu navigation. Both models utilize fixed-type LCDs around 2.5 to 2.7 inches with 230k-dot resolution - a standard for the time but decidedly low-res by modern standards.

Viewing angles and visibility in bright outdoor daylight are poor on both, though Canon’s slightly larger screen gives a marginally better framing experience.

Neither camera offers touch control, which isn’t surprising for 2010. The Canon edges ahead with clearer on-screen controls and more responsive menu navigation, thanks to Digic 4 processing. Kodak’s menus feel more cluttered and less intuitive, a factor of less refined UX design.

Viewfinder windows are absent on both models, meaning you rely entirely on the LCD for composition - a downside in bright environments or fast shooting.

Real-World Imaging: Sample Photos and Analysis

Field testing confirms what the specs suggest. The Canon Kicks out sharper, better-exposed images with more natural colors under typical daylight and indoor conditions. Skin tones render more faithfully and with smoother tonal gradients.

The Kodak’s output is softer, sometimes exhibiting color casts and less even exposure. Details lose crispness on zooming, revealing the sensor’s limitations. Its higher ISO images become grainy more quickly.

Landscape shots benefit from Canon’s larger sensor and better dynamic range, revealing more shadow nuance and detail in bright skies.

Canon SD1400 IS screen back Kodak M590 front Kodak M590 screen back

On portrait work, the Canon’s F2.8 aperture at wide angle allows better subject isolation with some background blur, while the Kodak’s unspecified aperture and generally smaller sensor create flatter images with less depth separation.

Durability, Build, and Weather Resistance

Both cameras are budget compact models with plastic chassis and no weather sealing. Neither is waterproof, dustproof, shockproof, or freezeproof - standard for this category. Handling them with care is essential.

The Canon feels slightly sturdier in-hand, with less creaking and more reassuring button presses. Kodak’s M590 has a lighter, more plasticky feel.

Environmental sealing wasn’t a selling point for either; avoid moisture and dust exposure.

Lens and Zoom Performance

The Canon features a 4x optical zoom lens covering 28-112 mm equivalent focal range with maximum aperture of f/2.8-5.9. This aperture range gives decent low-light capability at the wide-angle end but drops off towards telephoto.

Kodak’s zoom specs are less documented, but the focal length multiplier is 7.5x (due to focal length 35 mm equivalent unclear), suggesting a smaller zoom range, typically around standard 35-105mm zones in similar cameras, but less bright in aperture terms.

As expected, image quality degrades at full zoom for both but more noticeably on the Kodak.

Macro capability is better on the Canon, with 3cm close focusing, allowing detailed capture of flowers or small objects. Kodak lacks specified macro focus range, implying more standard minimum focusing distance.

Video Features and Multimedia Usage

Both cameras shoot HD video at 1280x720 30fps in H.264 format - a decent offering for casual video capturing in 2010. Canon additionally supports 640x480 and 320x240 resolutions.

Neither model offers microphone or headphone ports for enhanced audio quality, limiting video’s professional usability.

Kodak lacks an HDMI port or USB interface altogether, restricting connectivity to the digital world, while Canon offers HDMI and USB 2.0 for easier media transfer and TV viewing.

Neither camera supports modern innovations like 4K video or advanced video stabilization.

Battery, Storage, and Connectivity

The Canon SD1400 IS uses a proprietary NB-4L rechargeable battery, balancing compactness and decent runtime for casual use. Kodak’s battery model is unspecified but presumed a proprietary rechargeable as well.

In practical terms, I found the Canon offers longer shooting sessions per charge, thanks largely to efficient Digic 4 processing.

Storage-wise, both accept SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, though Kodak’s specs are less clear on compatibility. No dual card slots or RAW shooting options exist in either, limiting professional workflows.

Wireless connectivity is nonexistent on both; no Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC. Given the 2010 launch date, wireless transfer was not yet mainstream.

Specialties Across Photography Genres

Comprehensive usage analysis demands a look into how each model aligns with specific photographic genres.

• Portrait Photography:
  Canon’s wider lens aperture and larger sensor excel at rendering pleasing skin tones, subtle bokeh, and smoother tonal transitions. The Kodak struggles with softer details and flatter imagery.

• Landscape Photography:
  The Canon’s dynamic range advantage manifests in well-preserved highlights and shadow detail in high-contrast scenery. Better color fidelity and resolution help produce crisper landscapes.

• Wildlife and Sports Photography:
  Neither candidate is ideal due to slow contrast-detect AF and negligible burst frame rates. Canon’s 1 fps is insufficient for action capturing, and Kodak offers no continuous shooting specs.

• Street Photography:
  Both cameras’ unobtrusive profiles suit candid moments. Canon’s better controls give it a slight edge for fast snaps, but the absence of viewfinders may hinder quick compositions.

• Macro Photography:
  The Canon’s 3cm macro focus distance supports close-up shooting, handy for naturalists or hobbyists capturing small subjects. Kodak’s lack of dedicated macro function limits its usability here.

• Night and Astro Imaging:
  Limited ISO sensitivity and small sensors constrain long exposure success. Both cameras offer shutter speeds up to ~15s (Canon) and 8s (Kodak), enabling basic night shots but no specialized astro features.

• Video Capabilities:
  Both are limited to basic HD 720p footage without advanced stabilization or audio adjustment.

• Travel Photography:
  Canon’s compact size, longer battery life, and better image quality make it the clear choice for casual travelers seeking versatility in a pocketable package.

• Professional Work:
  Neither is recommended for professional use due to lack of RAW support, limited manual control (only on Kodak partially), and marginal image quality. They are strictly consumer-grade.

Summarizing the Performance Spectrum

A breakdown of their relative strengths and weaknesses conveys a clear distinction:

Canon SD1400 IS:

• Strengths: Superior sensor size, image quality, ergonomics, macro focus, battery life, HDMI connectivity
• Drawbacks: Slow autofocus, no manual exposure modes, no RAW support

Kodak M590:

• Strengths: Manual exposure control availability, smaller form factor
• Drawbacks: Smaller sensor, weaker image quality, minimal interface polish, limited connectivity

A genre-specific unpacking shows how these aspects translate in practice:

Which One Should You Choose? My Recommendations

If you’re revisiting these vintage ultracompacts or hunting for affordable compact cameras within this specification envelope, your choice hinges on your priorities:

• For better image quality, macro capability, and overall usability, Canon SD1400 IS takes the lead. Its larger sensor and refined controls offer a more satisfying photography experience for casual shooting, light travel, and portraiture.

• If you want simple manual control over exposure and an even smaller form factor, the Kodak M590 might appeal, but be prepared for compromises in image quality and operational ease.

Neither camera is suitable for demanding photographic genres such as wildlife, sports, or professional workflows - there are simply better alternatives on the market at various price points, even second-hand.

Final Thoughts: Lessons from the Ultracompact Frontier

Exploring the Canon SD1400 IS and Kodak M590 side-by-side underscores the challenges of packing meaningful photographic performance into tiny boxes. The differences in sensor size and processing horsepower prove critical even within the consumer ultracompact class.

The Canon’s more mature design philosophy and processing pipeline echo industry trends favoring sensor and processing innovations over raw resolution or zoom.

Future-proof features such as RAW capture, face detection autofocus, and wireless connectivity were only just emerging at this era - features lacking here but now standard.

If you are a photography enthusiast studying the evolution of digital cameras or need an approachable compact for straightforward snapshots, the Canon SD1400 IS remains a sensible pick. The Kodak M590 serves as a modest alternative with manual exposure options but overall delivers a less polished experience.

This comparative exploration demonstrates that while both cameras share similar release timelines and form factors, their divergences in key areas decisively tilt the balance in favor of Canon’s ultracompact model for most users. With a careful eye on your specific needs, you’ll find the right gem amid these modest but honest entries into the digital compact canon.

Happy shooting!