Fujifilm FinePix XP130 vs Kodak EasyShare M380: Hands-On Comparison for Contemporary Enthusiasts

Choosing a compact camera today means balancing a blend of portability, image quality, and feature set, all while being mindful of the quirks and realities each model brings to the table. Today, I’m diving deep with two humble ultracompact contenders: the Fujifilm FinePix XP130 (2018) and Kodak EasyShare M380 (2009). They couldn’t be more different in age or approach, yet both appeal to casual shooters seeking simple, grab-and-go photography solutions. Having spent considerable time with both, here’s my detailed, experience-backed evaluation - not just regurgitating specs but highlighting what matters on the street, trail, or family BBQ.

The First Impression: Size, Feel, and Handling

Let’s start by peeling back the first layer: the physical feel. Both cameras nestle comfortably in a jacket pocket or a purse, but the Fujifilm XP130 has a noticeably heftier, more rugged presence compared to the lightweight Kodak M380.

The Fuji’s body measures 110x71x28mm and weighs 207 grams, slightly chunkier but with obvious splashes of rugged sealing - the XP130 is waterproof, shockproof, dustproof, and even freezeproof. It screams "adventure buddy" and feels reassuring in rough conditions. Meanwhile, Kodak’s M380 is smaller and lighter at 100x60x20mm and 155 grams, but it lacks any environmental protection - no splash resistance here.

Ergonomically, the XP130 benefits from rubberized grips and physical buttons that give tactile feedback, something I’ve sorely missed on the Kodak’s more plasticky, minimalist facade. The Kodak, though more streamlined, feels like a friendly point-and-shoot from a simpler time - easy to slip in and out but not the most secure in challenging environments.

For a visual callout on design and control layout, check out the top view where Fuji opts for a robust, button-rich interface, compared with Kodak’s minimalist approach:

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: A Decade Apart - Does It Show?

Both sensors share the classic 1/2.3-inch form factor, a common choice for compact cameras, measuring roughly 6.17 x 4.55mm and an active sensor area of about 28mm². But a lot has changed between Kodak’s 2009 CCD sensor and Fuji’s 2018 BSI-CMOS sensor.

The XP130 boasts 16 megapixels, catching more detail than Kodak’s 10-megapixel chip. Beyond quantity, the Fujifilm’s back-illuminated CMOS sensor lets in more light and offers better noise handling, especially at higher ISOs. The Kodak M380’s CCD sensor, while respectable in its day, struggles with noise above ISO 400 and tends to produce softer images in dimmer conditions.

[For those who geek out on visual differences in sensors and resulting image quality, here’s a comparison graphic:]

In real-world use, I noticed the XP130 produces sharper, more vibrant images with richer dynamic range - a crucial boon for landscape and outdoor shooting. Kodak’s images come out softer and with more noticeable noise if lighting isn’t abundant. ISO 100 to 400 on Kodak is usable, but beyond that, it’s a struggle.

Neither camera shoots RAW - no surprises for cameras aimed at casual users - but Fuji’s JPEG engine does a better job balancing color fidelity and detail retention.

Navigation, Screens, and User Interface: The View from Behind the LCD

Both pack 3-inch fixed LCD screens, but the Fujifilm XP130’s screen has a resolution of 920k dots, which is crisp and bright enough to judge images comfortably outdoors. Kodak’s M380, with its 230k dots, is softer and sometimes frustrating to review images or check manual settings in bright sunlight.

No touchscreen on either, so menus rely entirely on button presses - a trade-off that I found fine once I got used to their layouts, but Kodak’s sparse controls mean more digging through menus, especially since it lacks advanced customization.

Here’s how they stack up visually on the rear:

Face detection autofocus (more on that soon) gets visual confirmation on Fuji’s display, helpful when composing portraits.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance: Who’s Quicker to Capture the Moment?

Autofocus precision and speed often define whether you get the shot or just a memory of the shot - especially in fast-moving scenes like wildlife or sports.

Fujifilm’s XP130 uses contrast-detection autofocus with face-detection and eye-detection features, plus continuous AF that performs surprisingly well for the category at tracking slow to moderate-moving subjects. It also allows limited AF area selection (albeit not multi-area tracking), which helps with aiming focus precisely.

Kodak doesn’t have face detection, and its autofocus relies solely on contrast detection with a center-weighted approach and 25 focus points (but no real multi-point tracking or face recognition). In practice, this means Kodak can lag behind quickly moving subjects, often hunting focus or missing the intended target entirely. It’s fine for static subjects but frustrating for street photography or active kids.

Continuous shooting mode gives XP130 a respectable 10fps. Kodak doesn’t specify burst speed, but in testing, it’s sluggish, often closer to 1-2fps, not ideal for dynamic shooting.

What About The Lenses? Zoom Ranges and Apertures in Practice

Both cameras feature fixed zoom lenses with 5x optical zoom - about a 5.8x crop factor on their small sensors.

Fujifilm’s lens covers 28-140mm equivalent (moderate wide to medium telephoto), with apertures ranging from f/3.9 at wide angle to f/4.9 at telephoto. Kodak leans slightly longer at 38-190mm equivalent but with a wider aperture range of f/3.1 to f/5.6.

Practically, Fujifilm gets closer at wide-angle, better for landscapes and group shots, while Kodak’s lens provides a longer zoom reach, which can be handy for casual wildlife or candid street frames - but at the cost of sometimes blurry edges due to optical compromises and less effective stabilization (more on that shortly).

Both lenses offer macro shooting capabilities at close distances (9cm on Fuji, 10cm on Kodak), great for flower, insect, or detail shots. I found Fuji’s macro sharper and easier to work with thanks to stabilization.

Image Stabilization: Your Shaky Hand’s Worst Enemy

Here’s a critical edge for the Fuji XP130 - it boasts sensor-shift image stabilization, reducing blur from handshake at slower shutter speeds and longer focal lengths. This makes shooting in available light easier and boosts success rate with longer zooms and video capture.

Kodak, unfortunately, has no image stabilization at all. That absence is glaring on long zoom shots or in low light, often forcing you to bump ISO or use a tripod for anything steady.

Ruggedness and Durability: Ready for Adventures or Just Neighborhood Strolls?

If you’re a photographer who takes your camera off paved paths - or just wants the peace of mind of a no-nonsense tough build - the Fujifilm XP130 stands head and shoulders above Kodak M380.

The XP130’s body is sealed against water (up to 15m), shockproof (up to 1.75m drops), dustproof, and even freezeproof, a rare feature among entry-level compacts. I’ve taken mine on hikes, beach trips, and rainy days without worrying about opening the case or wiping off salt sprays.

Kodak’s M380, meanwhile, lacks any form of environmental sealing. Think of it as a delicate urban device - fine in your pocket but don’t get it wet or too dusty, or you’re risking damage.

Video Capabilities: From Home Movies to Creative Clips

For casual videographers or vloggers on a budget, video specs matter.

Fuji XP130 records Full HD video at 1920x1080 pixels up to 60fps using efficient H.264 encoding. The built-in mic captures linear PCM audio, decent for everyday use. Although there is no external microphone input - a typical omission at this level - the video quality is crisp, colors vibrant, and stabilization effective, making handheld clips look smoother.

Kodak M380 records VGA (640x480) resolution video at 30fps in a Motion JPEG format - far below modern standards (think early 2000s webcam quality). No HD, no advanced audio, and no stabilization. Today, this will feel hopelessly outdated unless video is purely a very casual afterthought.

Battery Life and Storage: How Long Can You Shoot?

Battery life on the XP130 is rated for about 240 shots per charge, which is modest but typical for a compact with active stabilizers and sizable LCD. Its rechargeable battery is proprietary but easy to swap if you carry spares, and recharging via USB is a bonus convenience.

Kodak’s M380 uses a KLIC-7003 lithium-ion battery, but exact shots-per-charge ratings are vague. Anecdotally, expect around 200 shots per charge. Lacking digital conveniences, it might stretch longevity slightly but keep a spare if you’re out longer.

Both cameras use a single SD/SDHC/SDXC card slot with internal memory as a backup - standard fare that meets expectations.

Connectivity and Extras: Modern Conveniences or Retro Ride?

Here, Fujifilm leaps ahead with built-in WiFi and Bluetooth, allowing seamless image transfer to smartphones or tablets and remote control via app - a significant usability gain in today’s connected landscape. HDMI output lets you view shots on large screens easily.

Kodak M380 has no wireless connectivity, just USB 2.0 for file transfers. No HDMI or app support, making post-shoot workflows a bit more Old School.

Summary of Core Features and Performance Metrics

Here’s a graphical snapshot of how these cameras perform overall, with scores based on image quality, speed, features, and build quality - derived from hands-on evaluations and real-world testing benchmarks.

And a genre-specific breakdown illustrating each camera’s strengths across various photography types:

Real-World Photography Genres: Where Does Each Camera Shine?

Portraits: Skin Tones and Bokeh

Portrait shooters crave accurate skin tones, good autofocus on eyes, and creamy bokeh. Fujifilm’s face and eye detection AF gives it an edge in locking focus on the right spot, paired with decent bokeh from its slightly wider aperture and cleaner images at moderate ISOs. The Kodak falls flat here - no face detection and harsher colors on skin, plus noisier images that undermine subject reverence.

Landscape Photography

Dynamic range, color fidelity, and weather resistance matter most here. The Fuji XP130’s sensor and lens combo, plus its weather sealing, make it a strong choice for rugged landscapes and tricky lighting. Kodak’s lower resolution and lack of sealing limit its landscape appeal to fair-weather, simple scenes.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Speed and burst rate define success. The XP130’s faster AF and 10fps burst make it marginally usable for wildlife at moderate zooms, while Kodak’s sluggish AF and no real burst mode put it out of the running for active subjects.

Street Photography

Discreetness, responsiveness, and portability are paramount. Surprisingly, the Kodak’s smaller size slightly advantages it here, but its slower AF and no face detection limit quick candid shots. XP130 is bulkier but faster to react, though less subtle in crowded scenes.

Macro Photography

Fuji’s stabilized lens and closer focusing distance deliver better macro shots. Kodak can manage decent close-ups but often with blur due to lack of stabilization.

Night and Astro Photography

XP130’s better sensor noise characteristics and ability to expose longer (down to 4s shutter speed) outperform Kodak’s limited ISO range and no stabilization combo in low light.

Video Production

XP130 wins hands down with HD 1080p at 60fps and image stabilization versus Kodak’s VGA capture at 30fps with no stabilization.

Travel Photography

XP130’s rugged build and WiFi features make it a solid travel companion. Kodak’s lighter weight helps, but lack of durability and connectivity could be dealbreakers on longer trips.

Professional Use

Neither camera targets pros, but Fuji’s sharper images and versatile file formats, along with remote control features, make it marginally better for casual professional use or quick document shoots.

Final Thoughts - Which Camera Should You Pick?

If you want a fun, reliable, straightforward ultracompact that can handle outdoor action, diverse lighting, and casual video - all without sweating rain or dust - the Fujifilm FinePix XP130 is clearly the better tool. It blends modern conveniences into a rugged package that, despite its limitations compared to DSLRs or mirrorless cameras, packs far more punch than Kodak’s M380 in almost every category except for the occasional ultra-lightweight pocket stow.

The Kodak EasyShare M380, meanwhile, feels like a nostalgic flashback. If you prefer a simple, tiny shooter for perfectly sunny days, do mostly snapshots with minimal fuss, and don’t mind the lower resolution and muted features, it still can make a cheerful little keeper - especially if you find one cheap.

But for today’s photo enthusiasts primed for a casual adventure camera, Fuji’s XP130 is well worth the modest price bump.

Fujifilm XP130 front Fujifilm XP130 screen back Kodak M380 front Kodak M380 screen back

If you want a quick comparative reference:

Wrapping Up With a Photographer’s Perspective

Having tested many cameras over the years, I appreciate cameras like the Fujifilm XP130 for their willingness to push “compact” into truly useful terrain - offering ruggedness and smart features without the bulk. The Kodak M380 reminds me that sometimes, simplicity comes at a cost: you gain portability but lose versatility and image quality.

If you’re an enthusiast demanding better image quality, more reliable autofocus, and video options, with the occasional splash or drop not derailing your day, Fuji’s XP130 is the clear choice. For casual snaps indoors or in controlled lighting with pocket-sized readiness, Kodak’s M380 could still serve.

Ultimately, your choice depends on shooting style, environment, and how much you value modern tech conveniences. I hope this deep dive helps you shoot smarter and capture memories that last.

Happy clicking!