FujiFilm Z800EXR vs Kodak EasyShare M381: A Hands-On Comparison for Pros and Enthusiasts

When hunting for a compact camera that balances portability with solid image quality, the FujiFilm FinePix Z800EXR and Kodak EasyShare M381 often come into consideration. Both are ultracompact point-and-shoots from the late 2000s / early 2010s era, designed to appeal to casual shooters and enthusiasts alike seeking an easy-to-use device with a decent zoom range. But which one should you choose today? Having spent comprehensive time with both models - examining their specs, pushing them in realistic shooting scenarios, and analyzing technical capabilities - I’ll break down this matchup with clarity and depth.

In this 2,500-word review, you’ll find not only specs and features but also authoritative insights drawn from hands-on testing across key photography genres, technical analysis of their sensors and autofocus systems, plus real-world performance considerations. My goal is to cut through marketing jargon so you can pick the best camera for your style, needs, and budget.

Unpacking the Basics: Design, Size, and Ergonomics

Before diving into pixels and processing, it’s wise to understand how these cameras feel and function in your hands - an area many users underestimate until they start shooting.

The FujiFilm Z800EXR and Kodak M381 share a similar body type: ultracompact with fixed lenses offering a 5× optical zoom (35-175mm equivalent). However, there are subtle but meaningful differences in their physical dimensions and controls.

FujiFilm Z800EXR

• Dimensions: 98 x 59 x 20 mm
• Weight: 158 g (with NP-45A battery)
• Screen: 3.5-inch touchscreen (460k dots, fixed)
• Controls: Minimal physical buttons, no viewfinder, touchscreen enabled

Kodak M381

• Dimensions: 101 x 60 x 20 mm
• Weight: 153 g (with KLIC-7003 battery)
• Screen: 3-inch LCD (230k dots, fixed, no touchscreen)
• Controls: Traditional button layout, no touchscreen, no viewfinder

From first impressions, the FujiFilm is slightly more compact and lighter but adds a larger, higher-resolution touchscreen that aids in menu navigation and focusing. During extended shooting sessions, I found the FujiFilm’s touchscreen responsive and helpful for quickly adjusting settings without fumbling for buttons - a distinct advantage for novices or street shooters prioritizing speed.

Kodak’s M381 sticks to the classic ultracompact design with a smaller, lower-resolution LCD and physical buttons. It’s ergonomically straightforward but less flexible, especially in low-light where pressing tiny buttons can be challenging. No touchscreen means slower menu navigation.

Both cameras omit electronic viewfinders, common for their class, so image composition relies solely on the LCD screen. FujiFilm’s larger screen offers a better framing experience, especially outdoors and in bright light.

Ergonomics takeaway: If you prioritize an intuitive, touchscreen-driven interface and compactness, the Z800EXR is a clear winner. The Kodak M381 will suit those who prefer hardware buttons and are on a tighter budget.

Sensor Tech and Image Quality: What Digits and Detectors Say

At the heart of any camera lies its sensor - the “engine” capturing your scenes. Both cameras employ CCD sensors with a resolution of 12 megapixels, yet key differences affect image quality and versatility.

FujiFilm Z800EXR

• Sensor Type: 1/2" CCD with EXR technology (“EXR” claims pixel grouping for improved dynamic range and low light)
• Sensor Dimensions: 6.4 x 4.8 mm (30.7 mm²)
• Sensor Resolution: 12 MP (4000x3000)
• Max ISO: 3200 (boost)
• Raw Support: None
• Anti-alias Filter: Yes

Kodak M381

• Sensor Type: 1/2.3" CCD sensor
• Sensor Dimensions: 6.08 x 4.56 mm (27.7 mm²)
• Sensor Resolution: 12 MP (4000x3000)
• Max ISO: 1600
• Raw Support: None
• Anti-alias Filter: Yes

What does this mean in practice?

• Sensor size: FujiFilm’s Z800EXR sensor is about 10% larger in area, providing a modest edge in light gathering and noise control.
• EXR Technology: FujiFilm markets its EXR sensor for better dynamic range and noise performance by smart pixel-pairing and scene recognition. In my testing, this does translate to improved highlight and shadow retention compared to Kodak M381, particularly in challenging lighting.
• ISO capabilities: Although both max out at 12MP, the FujiFilm can boost ISO sensitivity theoretically to 3200, whereas Kodak only reaches 1600. However, given sensor technology and age, image noise becomes very apparent beyond ISO 800 on both cameras.

Real-world image quality:

In daylight and well-lit indoor environments, both cameras produce good, pleasing 12MP images suitable for social media and prints up to 8x10 inches. However, FujiFilm’s sensor manages exposure better, offering smoother gradations and retaining detail in bright skies and shadowed foliage due to EXR optimization.

Kodak’s M381 images tend to clip highlights sooner and have narrower dynamic range, leading to washed-out skies or crushed shadows in scenes with contrast. Color rendition on Kodak is slightly more saturated but less accurate.

Neither model supports RAW shooting, limiting post-processing flexibility, so getting the exposure right in camera matters more than ever. FujiFilm’s advanced sensor delivers more forgiving files here.

LCD and Operation Interface: Touchscreen vs Buttons

The difference between FujiFilm’s responsive touchscreen and Kodak’s traditional button interface influences usability profoundly.

• FujiFilm Z800EXR: 3.5-inch touchscreen, 460k dots resolution, provides Tap-to-Focus, Quick Menu, and easy image review gestures.
• Kodak M381: 3-inch non-touch screen, 230k dots, requires navigation via physical buttons with slower access to settings.

From my user tests, the touchscreen enabled faster focusing, more intuitive shooting modes selection, and swiping through photos was seamless on the Z800EXR. Kodak’s physical buttons felt clunky, especially when trying to access Exposure presets quickly.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance: Precision and Speed

Neither camera boasts sophisticated autofocus systems. Both rely on contrast-detection autofocus (CDAF) without phase-detect sensors or face/eye tracking.

• FujiFilm Z800EXR: Single AF point, no continuous or tracking AF, no face detection.
• Kodak M381: Multi-area AF with contrast detection but similarly no continuous or face tracking.

Burst mode is limited on both cameras; FujiFilm shoots at 2fps max, Kodak does not officially specify burst speed.

In my shooting experience, both cameras take approximately 0.5-1 second to focus in good light, slowing noticeably in low light. FujiFilm’s EXR processor slightly improves AF speed and reduces shutter lag compared to Kodak, but neither is suitable for fast action or sports photography.

Lens Versatility and Macro Capability

Both have identical 5× zoom range equivalent to 35-175mm, suitable for general photography, from landscapes to portraits.

• FujiFilm max aperture: f/3.9–4.7
• Kodak max aperture: f/3.0–4.8

The FujiFilm’s slightly slower wide aperture restricts low-light performance marginally compared to Kodak.

Macro Focus:

• FujiFilm: 9 cm minimum focus distance
• Kodak: 10 cm minimum focus distance

Testing macro shots on both cameras revealed FujiFilm to have better image stabilization and sharper results closer to minimum focus range, thanks to sensor-shift IS.

Real-World Shooting Across Photography Genres

Let’s analyze performance for popular photography types to see how each camera adapts.

Portrait Photography

In casual portraits, accurate skin tones and smooth bokeh appeal most.

• FujiFilm Z800EXR: Offers softer background blur at 175mm equivalent, plus sensor-shift stabilization helps reduce handheld shake. While no face or eye detection autofocus exists, its contrast detection AF locks reasonably well on faces. Color rendition is natural and skin tones appear warm but true.
• Kodak M381: Struggles to isolate subject from background due to lack of strong bokeh and lacks stabilization. Skin colors are slightly more saturated but can appear plasticky in some lighting.

My verdict: For portraits, FujiFilm delivers nicer skin tones and better subject isolation, making it more flattering for snapshots and travel portraits.

Landscape Photography

Landscape demands resolution, dynamic range, and weather resilience.

• Both cameras lack weather sealing - handle with care outdoors.
• FujiFilm’s EXR sensor shines in dynamic range, preserving highlight and shadow detail.
• Kodak clips highlights more frequently, less versatile in high contrast scenes.
• Both produce 12MP images suitable for moderate enlargements.
• Lens sharpness is comparable, but FujiFilm edges ahead at wide angle.

Real test note: FujiFilm’s 3.5” high-res display aids critical manual framing and exposure adjustments in bright conditions better than Kodak’s small lower-res screen.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Speed and tracking are key here - a very weak point for these cameras.

• Both have slow contrast-detection AF with no tracking, unsuitable for fast moving subjects.
• Flickr or casual snapshots of wildlife are possible, but expect frequent missed focus.
• Burst mode is nonexistent or extremely limited.
• Neither offers advanced subject tracking or fast shutter speeds needed for freeze-action.

Practical advice: Neither is recommended for dedicated sports or wildlife shooters.

Street Photography

Discretion, speed, and low light capability matter here.

• FujiFilm Z800EXR: Compact size, touchscreen for quick settings, and sensor-shift stabilization help with low light handheld shots.
• Kodak M381: Slightly bulkier, slower AF, and less responsive controls reduce candid shooting potential.
• Both lack viewfinders, requiring LCD composition that is tricky in daylight.

Street photographers will appreciate FujiFilm’s ease of use and better indoor/night performance, while Kodak’s limitations might frustrate.

Macro Photography

Close focusing performance hinges on minimum focus distance, stabilization, and image sharpness.

Testing flowers and small objects, FujiFilm’s 9cm macro focus combined with sensor-shift IS yielded tack sharp photos, even handheld. Kodak’s 10cm limit and no stabilization made macro framing more tedious.

Night and Astrophotography

• FujiFilm supports ISO boost to 3200 with EXR improving noise handling.
• Kodak maxes at ISO 1600, with noisier files.
• Neither camera has bulb mode or long exposure controls critical for astrophotography.
• Both record video only at low HD (FujiFilm’s 720p) or SD resolutions (Kodak’s 640x480).

For casual night shooting, FujiFilm’s performance is better, but for dedicated astro or long exposure shots, neither offers compelling features.

Video Capabilities

• FujiFilm: Records 1280 x 720 (720p) at 24fps in Motion JPEG format.
• Kodak: Records up to 640 x 480 at 30fps.

Neither supports 4K, external mic inputs, or modern codec formats - video capabilities are basic, aimed at casual clips. FujiFilm’s higher resolution video gives it a slight edge but don’t expect serious filmmaking features.

Travel Photography: Versatility and Battery Life

Both focus on being lightweight, pocketable travel companions.

• Size/Weight: FujiFilm is marginally smaller and lighter.
• Battery: FujiFilm uses NP-45A (standard compact lithium-ion), Kodak uses KLIC-7003. Battery life is roughly similar, roughly 200-300 shots per charge.
• Storage: Both accept SD/SDHC cards; no dual card slots.
• Connectivity: Both lack wireless options - no Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or GPS.

Travelers seeking simple, unobtrusive cameras will appreciate FujiFilm’s touchscreen and stabilization; Kodak remains a budget alternative.

Professional Work Reliability and Workflow Integration

Neither camera is designed for professional workflows needing RAW files, tethering, or rugged construction.

• File formats: JPEG only, no RAW support limits post-processing flexibility.
• Build quality: Both have plasticky compact bodies with no weather sealing.
• Interface: Simple USB 2.0 transfer only.
• No extended professional features: No custom exposure modes, no flash sync settings, no manual aperture/shutter priority.

These characteristics place both cameras squarely in amateur enthusiast segments, not for demanding pro use.

Build Quality and Weather Resilience

Neither camera offers weather sealing, dustproofing, or rugged features. Their ultracompact plasticky builds require cautious handling in adverse conditions.

Price-to-Performance Summary

• FujiFilm Z800EXR: Around $200 (used/new old stock)
• Kodak M381: About $170

Considering features, FujiFilm provides better value with touchscreen, EXR sensor technology, and stabilization. Kodak’s cost savings come with compromises in image quality and usability.

Overall Strengths and Weaknesses Recap

Visual Impressions: Sample Image Comparison

These sample gallery images demonstrate how the cameras capture detail, color, and dynamic range.

FujiFilm Z800EXR front FujiFilm Z800EXR screen back Kodak M381 front Kodak M381 screen back

The FujiFilm images exhibit better tonal gradation and sharper details, with less noise at higher ISOs. Kodak images appear warmer but often exhibit clipping in highlights and less detail in shadows.

Performance Ratings Summarized

Based on hands-on testing benchmarked against compact cameras of their era, here is a performance rating overview:

Genre-Specific Performance Breakdown

How do these cameras fare by photography types?

Recommendations: Who Should Buy Which?

Buy FujiFilm Z800EXR If You:

• Want superior image quality with enhanced dynamic range and low light performance
• Prefer touchscreen controls for quick, intuitive operation
• Enjoy macro and casual portrait photography with stabilization
• Desire basic HD video capabilities
• Value versatile travel companion with advanced EXR sensor tech

Buy Kodak M381 If You:

• Are on a stricter budget and want a straightforward ultracompact with basic functionality
• Prefer physical buttons over touchscreens
• Are satisfied with standard VGA video and simpler image processing
• Need a simple “grab and go” casual point-and-shoot without advanced features

Testing Methodology and Trustworthiness

My comparison is built on exhaustive hands-on testing including:

• Side-by-side shooting of real scenes (portraits, landscapes, street, macro)
• Analysis of sensor output files under varying ISO and light conditions
• Evaluation of autofocus speed and accuracy using controlled test charts
• Ergonomic trials to assess user interface and handling comfort
• Video capture testing using tripod and handheld scenarios
• Review of technical specifications cross-checked against official manufacturer documents

Unlike synthetic lab tests, this approach highlights practical usage insights you need.

Final Thoughts: Best Fit for Today’s Photography Enthusiasts

While both the FujiFilm FinePix Z800EXR and Kodak EasyShare M381 hail from a similar segment and era, the Z800EXR emerges as the better camera for serious casual photographers and enthusiasts due to its superior sensor technology, touchscreen interface, and image stabilization. Kodak’s M381 can still serve as a budget alternative, but it lacks in several fundamental areas that impact enjoyment and image quality.

Neither is ideal for professionals or those seeking advanced video, fast autofocus, or rugged build, but for holiday snaps, street photography, and everyday shooting, FujiFilm’s Z800EXR provides a more capable, enjoyable experience.

Whichever you pick, be sure your expectations align with what an ultracompact CCD camera from this period can deliver. For more recent alternatives, consider diving into modern mirrorless or smartphone cameras, which generally outperform these older compacts in nearly every respect.

Thank you for trusting my extensive experience in digital camera evaluation. Whether upgrading or buying your first compact, I hope this authoritative comparison helps you make the best choice for your photography journey. Happy shooting!