Casio EX-ZR400 vs Kodak Z950
92 Imaging
39 Features
51 Overall
43
89 Imaging
35 Features
29 Overall
32
Casio EX-ZR400 vs Kodak Z950 Key Specs
(Full Review)
- 16MP - 1/2.3" Sensor
- 3" Fixed Display
- ISO 80 - 3200
- Sensor-shift Image Stabilization
- 1920 x 1080 video
- 24-300mm (F3.0-5.9) lens
- 205g - 105 x 59 x 29mm
- Released January 2013
(Full Review)
- 12MP - 1/2.3" Sensor
- 3" Fixed Screen
- ISO 100 - 1600 (Raise to 3200)
- Optical Image Stabilization
- 1280 x 720 video
- 35-350mm (F3.5-4.8) lens
- 243g - 110 x 67 x 36mm
- Revealed June 2010
Apple Innovates by Creating Next-Level Optical Stabilization for iPhone Casio EX-ZR400 vs Kodak Z950 Overview
The following is a complete assessment of the Casio EX-ZR400 and Kodak Z950, former is a Small Sensor Superzoom while the latter is a Small Sensor Compact by manufacturers Casio and Kodak. There is a noticeable difference between the image resolutions of the EX-ZR400 (16MP) and Z950 (12MP) but both cameras offer the same sensor measurements (1/2.3").
Samsung Releases Faster Versions of EVO MicroSD CardsThe EX-ZR400 was brought out 2 years after the Z950 which is quite a sizable difference as far as tech is concerned. The two cameras have the same body design (Compact).
Before getting straight to a comprehensive comparison, here is a brief highlight of how the EX-ZR400 scores against the Z950 when it comes to portability, imaging, features and an overall mark.
President Biden pushes bill mandating TikTok sale or ban Casio EX-ZR400 vs Kodak Z950 Gallery
Here is a preview of the gallery images for Casio Exilim EX-ZR400 & Kodak EasyShare Z950. The entire galleries are available at Casio EX-ZR400 Gallery & Kodak Z950 Gallery.
Reasons to pick Casio EX-ZR400 over the Kodak Z950
| EX-ZR400 | Z950 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revealed | January 2013 |  | June 2010 | Newer by 32 months |
| Screen resolution | 461k |  | 230k | Crisper screen (+231k dot) |
Reasons to pick Kodak Z950 over the Casio EX-ZR400
| Z950 | EX-ZR400 |
|---|
Common features in the Casio EX-ZR400 and Kodak Z950
| EX-ZR400 | Z950 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manually focus |  | Very precise focusing | ||
| Screen type | Fixed |  | Fixed | Fixed screen |
| Screen dimensions | 3" |  | 3" | Equal screen measurements |
| Selfie screen |  | Neither features selfie screen | ||
| Touch screen |  | Neither features Touch screen |
Casio EX-ZR400 vs Kodak Z950 Physical Comparison
For anyone who is intending to travel with your camera frequently, you will need to factor in its weight and proportions. The Casio EX-ZR400 enjoys external measurements of 105mm x 59mm x 29mm (4.1" x 2.3" x 1.1") along with a weight of 205 grams (0.45 lbs) whilst the Kodak Z950 has measurements of 110mm x 67mm x 36mm (4.3" x 2.6" x 1.4") having a weight of 243 grams (0.54 lbs).
Check out the Casio EX-ZR400 and Kodak Z950 in our completely new Camera & Lens Size Comparison Tool.
Bear in mind, the weight of an ILC will differ dependant on the lens you are utilising at the time. The following is a front view measurements comparison of the EX-ZR400 versus the Z950.
Considering size and weight, the portability rating of the EX-ZR400 and Z950 is 92 and 89 respectively.
Casio EX-ZR400 vs Kodak Z950 Sensor Comparison
Oftentimes, it is very difficult to visualize the contrast between sensor dimensions purely by reading through technical specs. The image here should give you a stronger sense of the sensor measurements in the EX-ZR400 and Z950.
As you have seen, both the cameras provide the same sensor dimensions albeit different megapixels. You can expect the Casio EX-ZR400 to resolve extra detail having its extra 4MP. Higher resolution will help you crop photographs more aggressively. The younger EX-ZR400 should have a benefit when it comes to sensor technology.
Casio EX-ZR400 vs Kodak Z950 Screen and ViewFinder
Japan-exclusive Leica Leitz Phone 3 features big sensor and new modes Photography Type Scores
Portrait Comparison
Pentax 17 Pre-Orders Outperform Expectations by a LandslideStreet Comparison
Snapchat Adds Watermarks to AI-Created ImagesSports Comparison
Photobucket discusses licensing 13 billion images with AI firmsTravel Comparison
Sora from OpenAI releases its first ever music videoLandscape Comparison
Photography GlossaryVlogging Comparison
Meta to Introduce 'AI-Generated' Labels for Media starting next month
Casio EX-ZR400 vs Kodak Z950 Specifications
| Casio Exilim EX-ZR400 | Kodak EasyShare Z950 | |
|---|---|---|
| General Information | ||
| Company | Casio | Kodak |
| Model | Casio Exilim EX-ZR400 | Kodak EasyShare Z950 |
| Category | Small Sensor Superzoom | Small Sensor Compact |
| Released | 2013-01-29 | 2010-06-16 |
| Physical type | Compact | Compact |
| Sensor Information | ||
| Processor Chip | Exilim Engine HS | - |
| Sensor type | BSI-CMOS | CCD |
| Sensor size | 1/2.3" | 1/2.3" |
| Sensor measurements | 6.17 x 4.55mm | 6.08 x 4.56mm |
| Sensor area | 28.1mm² | 27.7mm² |
| Sensor resolution | 16 megapixels | 12 megapixels |
| Anti aliasing filter | ||
| Aspect ratio | 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 | 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 |
| Highest resolution | 4608 x 3456 | 4000 x 3000 |
| Highest native ISO | 3200 | 1600 |
| Highest boosted ISO | - | 3200 |
| Lowest native ISO | 80 | 100 |
| RAW images | ||
| Autofocusing | ||
| Manual focus | ||
| Touch focus | ||
| Continuous AF | ||
| Single AF | ||
| Tracking AF | ||
| Selective AF | ||
| AF center weighted | ||
| AF multi area | ||
| AF live view | ||
| Face detect AF | ||
| Contract detect AF | ||
| Phase detect AF | ||
| Cross focus points | - | - |
| Lens | ||
| Lens mount | fixed lens | fixed lens |
| Lens focal range | 24-300mm (12.5x) | 35-350mm (10.0x) |
| Largest aperture | f/3.0-5.9 | f/3.5-4.8 |
| Macro focus distance | 1cm | 6cm |
| Crop factor | 5.8 | 5.9 |
| Screen | ||
| Display type | Fixed Type | Fixed Type |
| Display sizing | 3 inch | 3 inch |
| Resolution of display | 461 thousand dots | 230 thousand dots |
| Selfie friendly | ||
| Liveview | ||
| Touch screen | ||
| Display tech | Super Clear TFT color LCD | - |
| Viewfinder Information | ||
| Viewfinder | None | None |
| Features | ||
| Lowest shutter speed | 15 secs | 1/8 secs |
| Highest shutter speed | 1/2000 secs | 1/1250 secs |
| Continuous shooting rate | 30.0 frames/s | - |
| Shutter priority | ||
| Aperture priority | ||
| Manually set exposure | ||
| Exposure compensation | Yes | Yes |
| Change WB | ||
| Image stabilization | ||
| Integrated flash | ||
| Flash range | 4.70 m | 5.40 m |
| Flash options | Auto, On, Off, Red-Eye | Auto, On, Off, Red-Eye |
| Hot shoe | ||
| AEB | ||
| White balance bracketing | ||
| Exposure | ||
| Multisegment metering | ||
| Average metering | ||
| Spot metering | ||
| Partial metering | ||
| AF area metering | ||
| Center weighted metering | ||
| Video features | ||
| Video resolutions | 1920 x 1080 (30 fps), 1280 x 720 (15, 30 fps), 640 x 480 (30, 120 fps), 512 x 384 (30, 240 fps), 224 x 160 (480 fps) 224 x 64 (1000 fps) | 1280 x 720 (30 fps), 640 x 480 (30 fps), 320 x 240 (30 fps) |
| Highest video resolution | 1920x1080 | 1280x720 |
| Video format | H.264 | Motion JPEG |
| Microphone support | ||
| Headphone support | ||
| Connectivity | ||
| Wireless | Eye-Fi Connected | None |
| Bluetooth | ||
| NFC | ||
| HDMI | ||
| USB | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) | USB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec) |
| GPS | None | None |
| Physical | ||
| Environment sealing | ||
| Water proof | ||
| Dust proof | ||
| Shock proof | ||
| Crush proof | ||
| Freeze proof | ||
| Weight | 205 gr (0.45 pounds) | 243 gr (0.54 pounds) |
| Physical dimensions | 105 x 59 x 29mm (4.1" x 2.3" x 1.1") | 110 x 67 x 36mm (4.3" x 2.6" x 1.4") |
| DXO scores | ||
| DXO All around score | not tested | not tested |
| DXO Color Depth score | not tested | not tested |
| DXO Dynamic range score | not tested | not tested |
| DXO Low light score | not tested | not tested |
| Other | ||
| Battery life | 500 pictures | - |
| Battery style | Battery Pack | - |
| Battery model | NP-130 | KLIC-7003 |
| Self timer | Yes (2 or 10 seconds, Triple) | Yes (2 or 10 sec) |
| Time lapse shooting | ||
| Type of storage | SD/SDHC/SDXC | SD/SDHC card, Internal |
| Card slots | One | One |
| Cost at launch | $0 | $250 |