Casio TRYX vs Kodak M590: Hands-On Expert Comparison for Discerning Photographers

Over the years, I’ve spent countless hours testing cameras ranging from pro-grade DSLRs to budget ultracompacts. Today, I’m diving into a detailed showdown between two ultracompact cameras that, while dated, still capture distinct slices of what compact photography gear aimed to offer a decade ago. The 2011 Casio TRYX and the 2010 Kodak M590. Both compact, yet distinct in approach, ideal for certain users looking for lightweight, pocketable options without breaking the bank.

If you’re a photography enthusiast or professional looking for a small camera to keep on hand, or maybe you’re a cheapskate wanting a decent ultraportable shooter, this comparison covers the ins and outs you need to make an informed choice without getting lost in specs-speak. I’ll break down how they perform across various disciplines - from portraits to landscapes, wildlife, macro, and even video. Along the way, I’ll share real-world findings based on hands-on use and extensive experience with cameras in this tier.

Let’s get started by sizing these contenders up - equipping you with practical insights, lessons from in-depth technical analysis, and a fair dose of “what it’s really like” behind the lens.

First Impressions: Size, Build, and Handling

When it comes to pocketability, size and ergonomics speak volumes.

At first glance, the Casio TRYX presents itself with a slim 122x58x15mm frame, striking a balance between compactness and usability. The Kodak M590 is a smidge smaller, most notably narrower at 97x58x15mm. This subtle size advantage makes the M590 exceptionally pocket-friendly, slipping easily into even slim jacket pockets without causing a bulge.

However, pocket size isn’t everything. The TRYX offers a more comfortable grip for longer use, thanks to its longer body and thoughtfully placed buttons designed with iterative ergonomic considerations. The controls aren’t flashy but feel well-considered, which tends to ease strains during extended handheld shooting sessions.

The Kodak, while smaller, feels a bit barebones. In my experience, it’s suited for quick snaps or as a backup camera but not ideal when you want to get serious about manually adjusting settings or shooting in challenging conditions.

Looking at the control layout from above, the TRYX’s simple yet functional design features modestly raised buttons providing tactile feedback. The Kodak’s minimalist top panel is sparse, reflecting its more modest feature set.

In short: If your jam is convenience and portability, Kodak wins points. If you prefer a more accommodating grip and control surface for everyday shooting, Casio TRYX comes out ahead.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Size and handling can only take you so far. The real discussion always comes down to sensor performance and image quality.

Here’s where the Casio TRYX flexes a notable advantage. Its backside-illuminated CMOS sensor measures 1/2.3 inch (6.17x4.55mm sensor area ~28.07 mm²) at 12 megapixels - small but technically more modern and efficient for its time than the Kodak M590's CCD sensor, which is physically smaller at 1/3 inch with a sensor area of 4.8x3.6mm (~17.28 mm²) and offers 14 megapixels resolution.

From my lab testing and comparative shoots, the TRYX delivers cleaner images, especially in low to moderate ISO situations, thanks to its BSI-CMOS sensor’s superior light gathering and noise control capabilities. Kodak’s CCD sensor, while decent indoors and in daylight, exhibits more noise creeping in past ISO 400, turning murky somewhere between 800-1600 ISO.

Dynamic range is another metric vital for landscapes and portraits alike. The TRYX’s sensor pulls ahead, capturing more nuanced shadows and retaining highlight details better than the M590, which tends to clip harsh highlights under bright conditions, making images less forgiving - especially in tricky lighting outdoors.

Regarding detail, Kodak’s higher megapixel count theoretically allows slightly better resolution in perfect lighting, but in practice, the TRYX’s sensor technology evens the playing field, producing sharper images with less noise smearing.

For ultracompact cameras of this vintage, these differences stand out during real use and can influence whether your images hold up through editing or enlargement.

Viewing and Interface: Keeping Your Eye on the Prize

Image review and framing mechanics are critical, particularly when you don’t have a viewfinder.

Casio decidedly puts more into the TRYX with its 3-inch fully articulated Super Clear TFT LCD boasting 461k-dot resolution. This articulation unlocks creative live view angles and self-portrait possibilities - crucial for travel vloggers, selfies, or macro setups requiring awkward positioning. The M590’s fixed 2.5-inch screen at a lower 230k resolution feels dated and cramped. You’ll be squinting or second-guessing focus more often here.

Workflow is made friendlier with the TRYX’s live view and touch-agnostic but responsive menu navigation, whereas the Kodak’s interface feels clunkier, less intuitive, and offers fewer manual exposure controls - a significant pain if you want to break out of full auto mode and experiment.

Autofocus & Exposure Controls: Precision Timing in a Blink

When testing ultracompacts, autofocus systems and exposure controls often separate “point and shoot” from “actually shoot.”

The Casio TRYX employs contrast-detection AF with reasonable speed for its class, locking focus fairly reliably - especially in decent lighting. However, it’s still nowhere near the tracking and speed you’d expect in modern hybrids or mirrorless cameras.

Kodak M590, in stark contrast, lacks live view autofocus support and offers no face detection or continuous AF, restricting its usability to simpler shooting conditions. Focus speed is noticeably slower, and shutter lag can be bothersome - a fact that reveals itself particularly when shooting moving subjects.

Exposure-wise, TRYX operates in a mostly fixed exposure mode with no manual or shutter-priority modes, limiting creative control. Kodak surprises here with shutter priority and basic manual exposure control, allowing more experimentation with shutter speeds - a boon if you want to try motion blur or freeze-action creativity.

So, if you’re craving some control over exposure, Kodak M590 nudges ahead, but autofocus reliability and speed strongly favor Casio TRYX for general photography.

Portrait Photography: Getting the Skin and Bokeh Just Right

Are either of these ultracompacts viable for portrait work?

Let’s talk skin tones, bokeh, and eye detection (or the lack thereof).

The Casio TRYX, with its f/2.8 fixed 21mm (35mm equivalent ~121mm calculated via focal length multiplier) lens, offers tight framing ideal for portraits with reasonable background compression. While it lacks dedicated eye detection autofocus, its center-weighted AF delivers decent focus on faces when composed carefully.

Skin tones produced by the TRYX sensor are clean, though leaning slightly toward cooler hues. The lack of RAW support limits post-processing flexibility, but the JPEG engine has predictable color rendition with a slight boost toward natural lighting.

Bokeh - while constrained by sensor and aperture - is pleasantly creamy for a compact, helping separate subjects from backgrounds when shooting close-ups. Macro focus down to 8 cm also supports intimate shots.

Kodak M590, with no provided aperture specs, defaults to a smaller max aperture, limiting low-light and depth of field control. Its CCD sensor and more conservative lens combo produce portraits that feel softer with less subject separation. Skin tones appear warmer but less accurate, attributable to inferior white balance customization (Kodak lacks custom WB, while Casio offers it).

Neither camera supports face or eye tracking AF, so sharp portraits require patient framing and still subjects.

Bottom line for portraits: Casio TRYX takes the slight lead for sharper, more pleasing rendering and better background separation. Kodak might suit casual snapshots but less so refined portraits.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Robustness

Landscape shooters seek expansive dynamic range, high resolution, and durability.

The TRYX sensor’s superior dynamic range offers more latitude to recover shadows and highlights in post - even with JPEG-only output. Its 12MP resolution is sufficient for prints up to moderate sizes without glaring softness. Articulated screen aids composing from differing heights.

Kodak’s 14MP sensor nets higher pixel counts but trades off physical sensor size and dynamic range. Landscape images tend to be noisier in shadow recovery and prematurely clipped in bright areas. Fixed screen and sluggish manual controls limit framing options.

Neither camera sports weather sealing or robust environmental resistance, so outdoor use in challenging conditions should be cautious.

Wildlife and Sports: Speed, Tracking, and Burst Rates

In wildlife and sports photography, every millisecond counts.

Neither camera is designed for these fast-paced genres. Both lack continuous AF, burst shooting, or advanced tracking.

Casio TRYX has a maximum shutter speed of 1/4000s, and the Kodak M590 tops at 1/1400s. In practice, neither excels at freezing fast motion.

Continuous shooting modes are absent from both. TRYX’s continuous shooting is not stated or unsupported; Kodak offers none.

The lack of dedicated telephoto or zoom capability beyond fixed focal length severely limits reach for wildlife.

If you absolutely must capture sports or animals, these cameras are last resorts; consider dedicated models with AF tracking and zoom lenses.

Street Photography: Stealth, Low Light, and Portability

Now we get into a genre where ultracompacts shine: street photography.

Kodak M590’s smaller size gives a stealth advantage - less conspicuous, less intimidating, and faster to whip out for candid shots.

Casio TRYX’s articulated screen is less critical here; it adds bulk. However, larger physical size and better handling balance stability and framing, which might help in tricky light.

In low light, Casio’s sensor excels, delivering cleaner shots at ISO 800-1600, compared with Kodak’s noisy output above ISO 400.

Neither camera is silent in operation, and no electronic shutter or silent modes exist - so, discreet shooting is more about nervousness management rather than hardware.

Macro Photography: Magnification and Focusing Precision

Macro enthusiasts will appreciate Casio TRYX’s 8cm macro focusing distance and more advanced manual control for composing close-up shots.

Kodak M590 lacks specific macro strength and focuses more slowly and less precisely in close quarters.

CASIO TRYX’s sharper optics and contrast-detection AF yield better-focused, detailed results in close-up scenarios.

Night and Astro: High ISO and Exposure Control

Night and astrophotography demand high ISO sensitivity and long exposures.

Casio’s 3200 ISO max performs better than Kodak’s 6400 ISO ceiling, paradoxically due to better noise suppression in Casio’s CMOS sensor versus Kodak’s older CCD.

Neither camera supports bulb mode, and long exposures are limited to 1/8s shutter minimum on Casio, 8 seconds on Kodak (oddly faster shutter but more noise).

Exposure controls favor Kodak slightly with manual and shutter priority modes, giving some control over darkness versus motion blur.

For astro or detailed night shots, neither camera is ideal, but Casio's cleaner low-light files and articulating screen favor it marginally.

Video Performance: Recording Features and Stability

Videographers should look closely here.

Casio TRYX records Full HD 1080p at 30fps using MPEG-4 codec. It also offers various slower frame rates at lower resolutions (e.g., 480fps for slow-motion which adds creative fun).

Kodak M590 limits video to 720p only, with H.264 encoding, no HDMI out, or external mic inputs.

Neither offers advanced image stabilization beyond Kodak’s optical stabilization (present), which might smooth handheld captures.

Casio's articulated screen aids composing selfie or vlog shots, while Kodak’s fixed display hinders versatile framing.

Travel Photography: Versatility, Battery Life, and Travel Readiness

Travelers need compactness, versatility, and power endurance.

Though exact battery life numbers aren’t available, anecdotal reports indicate modest endurance on both - suitable for day trips but necessitating backup batteries or power banks for extended excursions.

Casio TRYX’s versatility reigns with articulated screen, better sensor, video options, and manual control limitations. It pairs well as a compact second-body camera.

Kodak M590’s portability is excellent but falls short on features that matter during travels, such as wireless connectivity (absent here), reliable exposure modes, or robust controls.

Neither camera sports environmental sealing or rugged build for extreme conditions.

Professional Use and Workflow: File Options and Reliability

For professional photographers, RAW format and reliable workflow integration matter.

Sadly, both cameras do not support RAW, limiting editing flexibility.

Casio’s Exilim Engine HS processor improves JPEG quality, but professionals will feel constrained.

No wireless connectivity beyond Eye-Fi card support on TRYX, whereas Kodak has none, limiting tethering or transfer workflows.

No GPS, headphone/mic jacks, or high-end video connectivity.

In summary, neither designed for professional heavy lifting, but Casio offers marginally better image output and control.

Connectivity, Storage, and Miscellaneous Features

Casio TRYX supports Eye-Fi wireless card connectivity and has USB 2.0 and HDMI ports.

Kodak M590 lacks wireless altogether and USB port, making file transfers slower and more cumbersome.

Both accept SD cards, although exact card type for Kodak unspecified - likely SDHC compatible.

No GPS, Bluetooth, or NFC on either.

Putting It All Together: Scores and Summary

Based on comprehensive lab tests, real-world use, and technical analysis, Casio TRYX scores consistently higher across various aspects: image quality, sensor technology, ergonomic handling, and video capabilities.

Kodak M590 earns points mainly for its compactness and basic manual exposure modes but falls behind in image quality, AF performance, and connectivity.

Professionally, Casio TRYX outperforms in portraits, landscapes, street, and macro. Kodak struggles except for casual snapshots and simple travel photography where size matters most.

Sample Images: Seeing is Believing

Casio TRYX front Casio TRYX screen back Kodak M590 front Kodak M590 screen back

A direct visual comparison confirms Casio’s clearer, more detailed and less noisy images at higher ISO, richer color fidelity, and smoother bokeh. Kodak images appear softer, noisier, and less vibrant.

Pros and Cons at a Glance

Final Verdict: Which Ultracompact Can You Trust?

If I had to pick a compact “pocket rocket” for imaging quality, control, and versatility from these two, the Casio TRYX takes the win hands-down. It modernizes the ultracompact concept with a superior sensor, flexible screen, and usable video features that still hold value.

That said, the Kodak M590 fulfills a niche for a budget-minded user whose primary goal is absolute portability and simple shooting with some exposure control, and who can tolerate weaker image quality.

Photography is a journey, and neither camera claims to be a pro workhorse or a beast of performance. But if you want to avoid feeling hampered every shoot, the TRYX is a more worthwhile investment - not extravagant, yet equipped with enough bells and whistles to keep you engaged creatively.

For professionals or enthusiasts eyeing these models as backups or travel cameras, the Casio offers better reliability and output. For beginners or photo tinkerers with minimal demands, Kodak serves as a modest stepping stone.

I hope this grounded, experience-based comparison helps you weigh practical benefits over specs alone. Remember, real-world shooting joy comes from how a camera fits your style, not just headline features.

Happy shooting!