Canon PowerShot SX240 HS vs Kodak EasyShare Z990: A Comprehensive Superzoom Showdown

In the realm of small-sensor superzoom cameras, where versatility and convenience often trump raw image quality, the 2010s delivered a fiercely competitive lineup. Today, I’m diving deep into two intriguing contenders from that era: Canon’s PowerShot SX240 HS and Kodak’s EasyShare Z990. On paper, both pack hefty zooms, offer full manual controls, and aim to satisfy travel enthusiasts and casual pros alike. But how do they compare in real-world use and across diverse photographic demands? Over the years, my hands-on testing of thousands of cameras has taught me to look beyond spec sheets into ergonomics, autofocus finesse, sensor performance, and usability under pressure. Let’s explore how these two superzooms stack up across photography genres, technical specs, and day-to-day handling.

First Impressions: Handling and Build Quality

Holding the Canon SX240 HS and Kodak Z990 side-by-side immediately highlights one of the clearest dividing lines. The Canon is unmistakably compact and pocketable, measuring just 106mm wide by 61mm tall and 33mm deep, weighing 224g. The Kodak, on the other hand, is a bridge-style camera with a pronounced DSLR-like form factor - big and chunky at 124 x 91 x 105 mm and about 445g, nearly double the Canon’s weight.

The smaller Canon SX240 HS is designed for discreet, grab-and-go shooting. Its plastic body feels solid yet lightweight, ideal for travel photographers prioritizing portability over ruggedness. The Kodak Z990’s heft and bulk promise a more substantial grip and arguably a more “serious” camera aesthetic, but this large footprint can quickly become cumbersome for street or travel shoots focused on nimbleness.

Both cameras lack any weather sealing, so users should handle them carefully in adverse conditions - a common limitation in this category and era. Overall, the Canon’s minimalist styling and compactness offer superior ergonomics for casual users, whereas the Kodak appeals to those accustomed to larger grip and control layouts wanting more reach, albeit at the cost of portability.

Design and Control Layout: A Tale of Two Interfaces

Design-wise, the SX240 HS keeps controls simple. It lacks a viewfinder entirely; instead, its 3-inch, 461K-dot PureColor II TFT LCD rear screen stands as the sole framing tool. Controls are minimal and somewhat cramped due to the compact body, but the dedicated mode dial offers PASM (Program, Aperture, Shutter, Manual) modes, giving the user full exposure control - a boon rarely found on point-and-shoot class cameras.

In contrast, the Kodak Z990 features a bright, high-magnification electronic viewfinder (EVF), a desirable feature for shooting in bright sunlight or when precise composition stability is needed. The rear screen is also 3-inch but with 460K dots resolution; it's fixed type and lacks touchscreen functionality on both units. The Kodak’s grip area is more pronounced, supporting comfortable one-handed shooting even with long zooms extended.

The Kodak's physical controls are more extensive, with added external buttons and exposure compensation dials that allow faster access to shooting parameters without diving into menus. This can be a decisive advantage for enthusiast photographers who demand quick manual adjustments. The Canon’s simpler interface keeps things easier for novices but limits fine tuning agility for professionals.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: Under the Hood

Both cameras feature a 1/2.3-inch back-illuminated CMOS sensor with about 12 megapixels - common at the time for superzoom compacts - but subtle differences impact their performance footprints.

Canon’s SX240 HS uses the DIGIC 5 processor, which delivers solid image detail with decent noise control up to ISO 3200, though usable image quality really begins to drop past ISO 800 in low light. Its sensor dimensions measure approximately 6.17 x 4.55 mm, yielding a sensor area of 28.07 mm².

Kodak’s Z990 edges out slightly with a sensor area of 27.72 mm², very close in size but capable of ISO sensitivity up to 6400, doubling what Canon offers. Kodak also supports raw capture, a profound advantage for enthusiasts wanting to wrest maximum detail and dynamic range in post. Canon’s lack of RAW limits flexibility but simplifies processing for casual shooters.

Image quality from both cameras is respectable in good light, yet rainbow-like chromatic aberrations and softness creep in as you push their superzooms toward telephoto reaches (20x for Canon, an impressive 30x for Kodak). The Kodak’s faster max aperture at the wide end (f/2.8 vs f/3.5) also grants a slight edge in shallow depth-of-field control and low-light shooting.

Autofocus and Performance: Speed and Accuracy Face-off

When evaluating autofocus systems, I place enormous emphasis on accuracy and responsiveness, especially for wildlife and sports shooters who demand precision.

Canon SX240 HS comes equipped with 9 contrast-detection AF points and claims continuous AF tracking. In practice, its AF is fairly reliable but occasionally hesitant, especially in dim light or when subjects move unpredictably. Facial detection works but lacks animal eye detection features found on more modern cameras.

Kodak Z990’s contrast detection AF is slower and lacks continuous autofocus during burst shooting, limiting its capability for action photography. However, it does feature selective AF with multiple focus areas, affording users some control over focusing zone placement.

Burst shooting speeds further expose the Canon’s superiority: SX240 HS manages a modest 2 frames per second, steady but not race-horse fast. Kodak’s Z990 offers a 6 fps burst, appearing better on paper, but its autofocus cannot keep pace with this speed, leading to out-of-focus frames in continuous shooting scenarios.

Both cameras struggle in low-light autofocus without supplementary illumination, which is typical for small-sensor superzooms of this vintage.

Image Stabilization: Taming the Tremor

Superzoom cameras without good image stabilization are all but unusable handheld at full telephoto length. Fortunately, both Canon and Kodak implement optical image stabilization systems.

Canon’s optical IS does a credible job reducing blur from handshake, giving roughly three stops of shake reduction. Combined with the relatively light body, it makes the SX240 HS forgiving for handheld evening and travel shots.

Kodak also provides optical IS, but its heavier form and bulkier lens construction may challenge users to steady it fully. In testing, I found the Kodak’s IS useful but less refined than Canon’s, producing slightly more residual blur in long-exposure shots.

Neither system compensates for rolling shutter or subject movement, so a tripod or additional stabilization is advisable for critical work.

Viewing Experience and User Interface

A good LCD and viewfinder system is critical for composition and quick review, particularly when shooting in variable lighting.

Canon’s sole 3-inch LCD with modest resolution lacks touch, which is unsurprising for a 2012 compact, but employs a PureColor II TFT technology that renders colors vividly. Its fixed angle limits shooting comfort in awkward situations or low-to-the-ground macro work.

Kodak’s electronic viewfinder is a significant boon in direct sunlight, delivering a crisp framing experience the Canon cannot match. The rear LCD mirror Canon’s size and resolution but suffers from duller colors and a more reflective surface, hindering visibility outdoors.

Both cameras have straightforward menu systems that are conventional but lack customization options. Neither has illuminated buttons, which impacts usability in dim environments.

Zoom Reach and Macro Performance: Details Matter

When it comes to zoom, Kodak’s Z990 boasts a staggering 30x optical zoom - 28-840mm equivalent - compared to Canon’s 20x (25-500mm). This difference isn’t just a number; in the field, Kodak reveals its prowess in distant wildlife or sports photography where that extra reach is invaluable.

However, longer zooms tend to magnify shakes, making Kodak’s bulk and less effective IS more noticeable drawbacks. The Canon, with its smaller form factor and solid IS, may be more practical for casual shooters despite a shorter telephoto range.

In macro photography, Kodak again ventures further, offering close focusing down to 1 cm, ideal for capturing intricate details such as insects or textures. Canon’s macro mode at 5 cm is respectable but less aggressive. The Kodak Z990’s larger body and grip also facilitate more precise manual focus adjustments in macro sessions, enhancing control.

Video Capabilities: Beyond Still Images

Both cameras shoot Full HD video with 1080p resolution, but differ in frame rates and usability. Canon recordings max out at 24 fps, creating cinematic motion but potentially limited for sports or fast-moving subjects. Kodak tops at 30 fps for smooth playback.

Neither offers microphone or headphone ports, restricting audio quality to built-in microphones. Both record in H.264 format and have HDMI out for external viewing. No touchscreen or advanced video features such as slow-motion or 4K are present, reflecting their era.

Kodak’s faster burst and zoom reach may tempt videographers opting for superzoom flexibility during recording, but the Canon’s superior IS may yield steadier footage handheld.

Battery Life and Storage: Usability Essentials

Canon’s SX240 HS uses a proprietary NB-6L battery pack, rated for approximately 230 shots per charge - a modest figure that often necessitates spare batteries during extended outings.

Kodak Z990 runs on four AA batteries, an advantage for travelers who can easily find replacements worldwide, but at the cost of added weight and bulk.

Both cameras support SD, SDHC, and SDXC cards with a single storage slot. Kodak also offers limited internal storage, which is unlikely practical for real shooting.

Connectivity and Wireless Features

Neither camera has Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, or GPS - features commonplace in modern cameras but not yet standard in 2011-2012. Both include USB 2.0 for image transfer and HDMI connectivity for external displays. This absence means no instant sharing or geotagging, limiting appeal for social photographers wanting seamless workflows.

Price and Value Proposition

At launch, Kodak’s Z990 carried a $299 price tag, positioning it as an affordable bridge superzoom offering massive zoom and raw files. The Canon SX240 HS, though older and budget-oriented, remains a compact solution for entry-level users.

Given their age, neither camera is a recommended purchase for professionals needing advanced features or top image quality. However, for collectors or casual shooters seeking affordable zoom versatility, they hold some nostalgic and functional appeal.

Real-World Sample Images: Seeing Is Believing

Canon SX240 HS screen back Kodak Z990 front Kodak Z990 screen back

Examining sample images from both cameras under different conditions reveals important distinctions:

• The Canon SX240 HS images tend to be cleaner at base ISO with reliable color reproduction and decent skin tones in portrait settings.
• The Kodak Z990’s images exhibit slightly more noise but benefit from richer tonal gradation when shooting raw files, allowing more editing latitude.
• Zooming and cropping reveal more softness and chromatic aberrations in the Kodak at full zoom, partially mitigated in Canon shots thanks to effective IS and lens coating.
• Video clips from both cameras perform adequately but fall short compared to newer models, lacking stabilization and dynamic audio.

Final Performance Scores and Genre Breakdown

Who Should Buy Which?

Choose the Canon SX240 HS if…

• You prioritize compactness and travel portability.
• You need solid all-around image quality and easy handling.
• You want full manual exposure controls without complexity.
• You shoot casual stills and occasional video with decent stabilization.
• Battery weight and quick recharge options matter.

Choose the Kodak EasyShare Z990 if…

• You want maximum zoom reach for wildlife or distant subjects.
• Raw image capture with post-processing flexibility appeals.
• You prefer a bridge camera grip and EVF for framing.
• You shoot macro photography often.
• You’re okay with heavier gear and moderate image stabilization.
• Burst shooting speed (though limited AF) is important.

Closing Thoughts: A Matter of Priorities

Between these two small-sensor superzooms, the Canon SX240 HS emphasizes portability and straightforward handling, making it a reliable point-and-shoot for everyday adventures and casual travel photography, especially for those who value simplicity.

The Kodak EasyShare Z990 delivers a punchier zoom and raw support with a DSLR-like command feel, targeting enthusiasts who are willing to carry a bulkier, heavier camera for expanded creative control and reach.

Neither camera offers stellar low-light performance or lightning-fast autofocus by modern standards, but within their era and class, each sets its own tone: Canon for balanced ease and Kodak for zoomed-in flexibility.

Both remain charming relics of the early 2010s superzoom niche and can satisfy focused users aware of their limitations. As I always stress, choosing a camera should flow from your shooting style, genre priorities, and ergonomic preferences - and hopefully, this in-depth comparison has illuminated just where Canon and Kodak stand on your photographic journey.

Happy shooting!