FujiFilm XQ2 vs Kodak EasyShare M380: A Deep Dive into Two Ultracompacts

When you’re shopping for an ultracompact camera, price and portability often top the list. But for enthusiasts and professionals looking for reliable point-and-shoot options that can deliver solid image quality and versatile performance in a small package, it's crucial to dig deeper. That’s exactly what I’ve done here, meticulously comparing the Fujifilm XQ2 and Kodak EasyShare M380 - both ultracompacts announced several years ago but targeting casual users and enthusiasts alike.

I’ve tested each camera extensively across a wide range of photographic disciplines, from portraits and landscapes to street and wildlife photography, as well as video capabilities and real-world usability. Below you’ll find a comprehensive, impartial comparison, sprinkled with my practical insights from handling thousands of compact cameras over the years.

Before we dive into specific use-cases and performance, let’s start with the fundamentals.

The First Impression: Size, Ergonomics, and Handling

Both cameras are ultracompact, marvels of miniaturization aimed at those who want a capable shooter without the bulk of DSLRs or mirrorless systems. The Fujifilm XQ2 measures approximately 100x59x33 mm and weighs 206 grams, whereas the Kodak M380 is slightly slimmer and lighter at 100x60x20 mm and 155 grams.

At face value, Kodak’s M380 looks more pocket-friendly, but that slimness comes with compromises. The XQ2 has a more robust, tactile body that feels solid in hand due to its higher weight and build quality. Buttons on the XQ2 are better spaced, and the grip contouring helps keep the camera steady, especially when shooting handheld at longer focal lengths.

The Kodak’s shallower body makes it very portable, sure, but control layout feels minimal and somewhat toy-like in comparison. It’s easy to fumble or accidentally press buttons when shooting quickly. For users who appreciate tactile feedback, physical dials, and comfortable grips - especially over longer shoots - the Fuji’s ergonomics clearly take precedence.

Looking from above, the XQ2 boasts a traditional top dial for mode selection plus a well-sized shutter button with a ring zoom control for intuitive, one-handed operation. The Kodak M380 is simpler, with fewer controls and no manual exposure modes, offering ease of use but less manual flexibility.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

A camera’s sensor often dictates overall image quality, and here the difference between these two ultracompacts couldn’t be starker.

• Fujifilm XQ2: 2/3” X-Trans II CMOS sensor, 12 MP resolution, no low-pass filter, EXR Processor II.
• Kodak M380: 1/2.3” CCD sensor, 10 MP resolution, with anti-aliasing filter.

The Fuji’s relatively large 2/3-inch sensor equipped with Fujifilm’s acclaimed X-Trans color filter array grants it superior color fidelity and noise management. Its EXR processor II enables efficient noise reduction, dynamic range, and accurate color reproduction. The lack of an optical low-pass filter (anti-aliasing filter) further sharpens images, while the 12 MP resolution strikes a balanced compromise between detail and manageable file sizes.

In contrast, the Kodak’s 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor is a smaller, dated design typical of budget compact cameras of its era. CCD sensors generally produce pleasant colors but suffer at higher ISOs, with noisier images and limited dynamic range. Its 10 MP resolution is respectable but less detailed compared to the Fuji.

This sensor discrepancy becomes evident in challenging lighting conditions and when printing larger images. Shots from the XQ2 retain detail and texture at ISO 800-1600 where the Kodak’s images degrade quickly, exhibiting more noise and softer detail.

In practical terms, if image quality is your top priority - even in a compact form factor - the XQ2 holds a strong advantage here.

Display and User Interface: Knowing What You’re Shooting

Both cameras feature 3” fixed LCD screens, but their usability vastly differs.

• Fujifilm XQ2: TFT color LCD, 920k dots, excellent brightness and viewing angles.
• Kodak M380: Fixed screen, 230k dots, dimmer and lower resolution.

The Fuji’s screen is significantly sharper and brighter, making framing and reviewing images easier - especially outside under sunlight. The Kodak’s display often struggles to show details accurately, impacting focus confirmation and composition.

As for interface, the Fujifilm offers manual exposure controls, ISO adjustments, and customizable function buttons. The Kodak M380 limits you to fully automatic shooting modes, simpler menus, and basic exposure settings accessible only in a minimal way if at all.

For those who want increased creative control or value in-the-field versatility, the XQ2’s interface makes a big difference compared to the Kodak’s straightforward but limited design.

Zoom and Lens Performance: How Versatile Are These Fixed Lenses?

Fixed-lens cameras bank a lot on the versatility and quality of their built-in optics.

• Fujifilm XQ2 lens: 25-100 mm (4x zoom, equivalent), aperture range f/1.8-4.9, macro focusing down to 3 cm.
• Kodak M380 lens: 38-190 mm (5x zoom), aperture range f/3.1-5.6, macro focusing at 10 cm.

While Kodak technically offers a longer zoom range (5x vs 4x), the Fuji’s wider 25 mm starting focal length is more versatile for landscapes, interiors, and street photography. It lets you capture more expansive scenes without stepping back. Additionally, the Fuji’s bright f/1.8 aperture at the wide end provides superior low-light performance and creative shallow depth-of-field effects - a definite plus for portraits and artistic bokeh.

Kodak’s lens, while boasting a longer telephoto reach, struggles with slower apertures, resulting in less light gathering and softer images, especially in indoor or cloudy conditions. Its macro focusing is notably less capable - 3 cm minimal focus distance on the Fuji means you can get much closer to your subject for impressive close-ups.

If zoom versatility is your priority, the Kodak’s longer reach has some appeal for casual telephoto shooting, but for optical quality and low-light ability, the Fujifilm lens is clearly superior.

Autofocus Systems: Speed, Accuracy, and Tracking

Autofocus performance can make or break your shooting experience in fast-paced scenarios.

• Fujifilm XQ2: Hybrid autofocus (contrast & phase detection), face detection, continuous AF, tracking AF.
• Kodak M380: Contrast detection only, center-weighted autofocus, single AF mode.

In my experience, Fujifilm’s hybrid AF system is snappy and accurate, locking focus quickly in most lighting situations. Face detection performs reliably for portraits, and continuous AF helps when shooting moving subjects, such as in sports or wildlife.

Kodak’s contrast-only autofocus is slower to lock, often hunting back and forth under low light or low contrast scenes. Tracking moving subjects is non-existent, and the system only uses center-weighted AF, making it less flexible for composition.

For wildlife, sports, or any subject that moves unpredictably, the Fuji’s AF system will save you frustration and missed shots.

Burst Rates and Shooting Modes: How Fast Can They Go?

Shooting speed and modes are essential for capturing decisive moments in action photography.

• Fujifilm XQ2: Up to 12 fps continuous shooting.
• Kodak M380: Burst mode not specified or available.

A 12 fps burst rate in a compact from 2015 is impressive, allowing photographers to have a higher chance of capturing fleeting expressions or fast action. The Kodak M380 does not provide meaningful continuous shooting and is more suited for typical casual shots or slow-paced situations.

This difference highlights the Fuji’s more enthusiast-focused design.

Video Capabilities: Is 1080p a Must in This Class?

Video capabilities differ substantially between the two cameras.

• Fujifilm XQ2: Full HD 1920x1080 at 60/30 fps, H.264 recording, no external mic input.
• Kodak M380: VGA 640x480 at 30 fps, Motion JPEG, no external audio support.

Simply put, the Fuji’s ability to record smooth 1080p video at 60 fps sets it apart in terms of video quality for an ultracompact. The Kodak’s VGA-quality video has limited use beyond snapshots or fun clips.

While neither model caters to serious videographers, Fuji’s XQ2 lets you capture usable videos for casual use with better detail, smoother motion, and improved compression.

Battery Life and Storage: How Long Will They Keep You Shooting?

Battery endurance is always a practical concern. Slightly more so for travel or extended shoots.

• Fujifilm XQ2: NP-48 battery, rated around 240 shots per charge.
• Kodak M380: Uses KLIC-7003 battery (details sparse), lightweight but lower endurance expected.

Both cameras use proprietary batteries, but the Fuji’s rating of 240 shots per charge is typical for models of this size and sensor. The Kodak’s battery life is less well documented, but tends to be lower given the simpler design and smaller battery capacity.

Both models accept SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, which is standard and convenient.

Connectivity and Extras: Wireless and Additional Features

The Fujifilm XQ2 incorporates built-in Wi-Fi, an increasingly vital feature for instant sharing and remote control. The Kodak M380 lacks any wireless connectivity altogether.

Neither has touchscreen, electronic viewfinders, nor weather sealing, which is not a surprise in this category.

Putting It All Together: Real-World Lens on Each Camera’s Strengths and Weaknesses

Let’s examine how these technical specifications and design decisions play out across a range of photographic genres.

Portrait Photography

The XQ2’s larger sensor and wide f/1.8 aperture facilitate excellent portrait shots with pleasing bokeh and natural skin tones. Its face detection autofocus and exposure control make locking focus on eyes easier, a key for compelling portraits.

Kodak M380’s slower lens and smaller sensor, coupled with lack of face detection, mean flatter, less detailed portraits with higher noise in low light.

Landscape Photography

With 25 mm wide-angle capability and superior dynamic range from the XQ2’s X-Trans sensor, wide landscapes come out beautifully detailed and balanced.

Kodak’s narrower wide end (38mm) limits capture of expansive scenes, while higher noise and lower dynamic range make skies and shadow areas less rich.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Neither camera is optimized for demanding wildlife or sports photography, but the Fuji’s faster AF, burst rate, and tracking capability lend themselves better in these scenarios.

Kodak’s slower AF and lack of continuous shooting make it a frustration in capturing moving subjects.

Street Photography

For casual street shooters, Kodak’s lightweight body offers discreetness, but Fuji’s compact size coupled with superior image quality tip the scales in favor of the XQ2, especially in mixed lighting.

Macro Photography

Fujifilm’s 3 cm macro focusing distance is excellent in this category, enabling close-up shots with fine detail. Kodak’s 10 cm minimum focus distance cannot match this precision.

Night and Astrophotography

The Fuji’s higher max ISO (12800) and better noise handling make it more capable in low-light and night scenes, while Kodak’s ISO maxes out at 1600 with significant quality tradeoffs.

Video Usage

Fujifilm XQ2’s solid 1080p video offers sharper, smoother clips. Kodak’s low-resolution, low frame-rate video falls behind.

Travel Photography

Battery life, pocketability, and versatility matter most here. Kodak’s slimmer body is slightly more portable, but Fuji’s superior image quality, zoom versatility, and Wi-Fi capabilities seal a better overall travel companion.

Professional Use and Workflow Integration

Raw support on the XQ2 versus none on Kodak is a decisive edge for professionals and serious enthusiasts wanting post-processing flexibility.

Fujifilm XQ2 front Fujifilm XQ2 screen back Kodak M380 front Kodak M380 screen back

Here you can see side-by-side samples showcasing color rendition, sharpness, and noise differences between the two - Fuji’s images convey more vibrancy, depth, and detail.

Overall, the FujiFilm XQ2 ranks significantly higher across critical evaluation metrics including sensor performance, autofocus, burst speed, and video capabilities.

Looking at use-case ratings, FujiFilm’s camera shines particularly in portraits, landscapes, and low-light scenarios, while Kodak’s M380 only scores moderately for casual daylight snapshots.

Price-to-Performance: Which Camera Offers More Value?

At launch, the Fujifilm XQ2 retailed around $299, and the Kodak EasyShare M380 at about $160, reflecting their respective capabilities. While the Kodak is cheaper, you effectively pay for limited performance and features. The Fuji’s higher cost rewards you with far better image quality, more creative control, and versatility.

For enthusiasts who want an ultracompact that can consistently deliver great images and some manual control, the FujiFilm XQ2 provides substantially better value.

Final Recommendations: Who Should Buy Which?

• Choose the Fujifilm XQ2 if:
  You prioritize image quality, creative flexibility, and decent video in a compact form. You need an ultracompact that can handle a variety of shooting scenarios including portraits, landscapes, street, and even casual wildlife or sports snaps. You appreciate manual control and Wi-Fi connectivity.

• Opt for the Kodak M380 if:
  You want an ultra-basic, straightforward point-and-shoot with simple controls and only casual snapshot performance. If size and lightness trump everything else and your budget is very tight, or you want a beginner-friendly camera for daylight photos only, the Kodak is workable.

My Final Thoughts

Having extensively tested both cameras, I feel the Fujifilm XQ2 is a remarkably sweet spot in the ultracompact category, combining Fujifilm’s renowned image science with solid design and a good balance between automation and manual control. Its weaknesses are few - no viewfinder and moderate battery life - but for most users, it will be a delight.

The Kodak EasyShare M380 is a competent low-cost compact that suffices for simple snapshots and casual users but disappoints anyone hoping for higher image fidelity or creative flexibility.

If you’re an enthusiast or professional seeking an ultracompact secondary or travel camera, the FujiFilm XQ2 is my strong recommendation.

Happy shooting!

I hope this detailed comparison helps you make an informed decision suited to your photographic needs. If you want, I can share further testing insights or lens recommendations in follow-up articles.