Kodak M340 vs Nikon Coolpix S220: An Expert Ultracompact Camera Showdown

When it comes to ultracompact cameras from the late 2000s, two modest players often come up: the Kodak EasyShare M340 and the Nikon Coolpix S220. Both debuted in early 2009, targeting casual photographers seeking a pocket-friendly camera for everyday snapshots. But beneath their diminutive exteriors lurk some notable differences that affect how they perform across real-world shooting scenarios.

Having spent countless hours testing compact and ultracompact cameras, I’m confident a detailed comparison of these two can help you pinpoint which suits your needs best. Despite their age and limited capabilities compared to current models, understanding their strengths and quirks still offers valuable lessons in camera design and user experience. Plus, if you’re shopping a budget-friendly second hand compact, this could save you some legwork.

Let’s break down what makes the Kodak M340 and Nikon S220 tick - from size and handling, through image quality, all the way to specialized photography genres and video. I’ll also weigh in on usability, performance, and value to guide different buyer profiles. Ready? Let’s start with their physical presence.

Pocket Size and Handling: What Fits in Your Hand?

Packing a camera is often the first practical hurdle, especially for travel, street, or candid photography enthusiasts. Both the Kodak M340 and Nikon S220 fall squarely into the ultracompact category, but subtle differences in weight and dimensions influence real-world comfort.

The Kodak M340 measures 96x59x19 mm and weighs 115 grams, while the Nikon S220 is a bit smaller and lighter at 90x56x18 mm and 100 grams. At first glance, that 15-gram difference may seem minimal, but in hand, the Nikon definitely feels more pocketable and streamlined.

Ergonomically, neither camera boasts a dedicated grip or extensive tactile controls typical of higher-end compacts. Both rely on a small, rounded plastic body that fits snugly between fingers but lacks refinement for extended use. For casual, point-and-shoot convenience, that’s perfectly fine - just don’t expect stable handling for more demanding scenarios. I prefer the Nikon’s slightly sleeker chassis for urban street photography, where subtlety and fast deployment are paramount.

Neither camera includes external dials or customizable buttons, limiting hands-on control. They both operate primarily through menu-driven systems and simple button arrays, suited to beginners or those who prefer absolute simplicity.

Control Layout and User Interface: Navigating the Basics

Looking beyond size, how intuitive are these cameras to operate day to day? Control layout impacts every shot, especially when quick adjustments are needed.

The Kodak M340 presents a slightly more spaced-out button arrangement, with its power button, shutter release, and zoom toggle comfortably placed on the top plate. The Nikon S220 consolidates these controls more compactly, but that can make accidental button presses more likely.

Neither offers a touchscreen - unsurprising at this price and era - and both rely on fixed 2.5- to 2.7-inch LCD screens with modest 230k-dot resolution for framing and menu navigation.

The M340’s advantage lies in a dedicated macro button, making close-up shots like flowers or small objects easier to toggle. The Nikon compensates with slightly faster continuous shooting (up to 11 fps compared to Kodak’s lack of burst mode) and custom white balance options for refined color control.

But for overall user-friendliness, I appreciate the Kodak’s straightforward center-weighted metering coupled with selective spot autofocus (a rarity at this price). It gives you more confidence in nailing exposure and focus on specified subjects, crucial when shooting portraits or street scenes.

Through the Glass: Sensor Characteristics and Image Quality

At the heart of any camera lies its sensor and processing engine - two factors that define image quality limits. Both the Kodak and Nikon sport 1/2.3” CCD sensors with 10-megapixel resolution, but subtle technical differences affect results.

Kodak’s M340 features a sensor measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm, yielding a total sensor area of approximately 28.07 mm². Nikon’s S220 is slightly smaller at 6.08 x 4.56 mm (27.72 mm² total). While these differences are marginal, they influence pixel pitch and noise performance.

Interestingly, the Nikon supports a higher maximum native ISO of 2000 compared to Kodak’s 1600. In practice, this means Nikon can eke out a bit more sensitivity in dim environments, although the small sensor limits actual low-light usability for both cameras.

Kodak’s sensor tends to produce warmer skin tones and vibrant colors, which I found pleasing for portraits, whereas Nikon’s images lean toward a cooler, neutral palette - better suited for landscapes or architectural shots where color accuracy matters. Both apply anti-aliasing filters that slightly soften detail but help reduce moiré in fine textures.

Neither supports RAW shooting, forcing users to rely on JPEG outputs for all post-processing. So getting exposure and white balance right in-camera is critical.

The View Behind the Scenes: LCDs and Interface Readability

You’ll spend a lot of time looking at each camera’s display to compose shots, review images, and tweak settings.

The Kodak M340 sports a 2.7-inch LCD, slightly larger than the Nikon’s 2.5-inch screen, and both share a 230k-dot resolution rating. In practical use, they offer comparable color reproduction and brightness under shade or indoor lighting - but struggle outdoors in bright sunlight, where glare renders framing tricky.

Menus on both models feel dated, with flat, text-heavy screens and small icons. Kodak’s interface is reasonably well organized, with quick access to flash modes and macro shooting via dedicated buttons. Nikon’s UI includes additional features like custom white balance, but finding them through nested menus can interrupt workflow.

No electronic viewfinders exist on either camera, limiting framing to the LCD. This is expected for ultracompact models but a notable drawback for compositions in bright environments or fast-action shots where eye-level view is preferred.

Sample Images: Real-World Results Side by Side

Theory is great but seeing sample images clinches the deal in any camera comparison.

Kodak M340 front Kodak M340 screen back Nikon S220 front Nikon S220 screen back

Here are direct JPEG outputs from both cameras under similar lighting conditions and framing:

• Portraits: Kodak’s warmer color tone enhances skin tones, delivering a friendlier, more natural look. Nikon’s cooler palette can render skin pallid but provides subtle detail. Both struggle with bokeh, producing mostly sharp focus throughout due to small sensor and narrow apertures.

• Landscape: Nikon’s neutrality shines here, with slightly better handling of greens and blues. Kodak’s images show marginally stronger saturation and contrast - potentially too punchy for purists.

• Low Light: Both cameras introduce noticeable noise at highest ISO settings, with Nikon holding a slight edge thanks to its 2000 ISO limit. Still, neither is ideal for night scenes without extra stabilization or supplemental lighting.

• Macro: Kodak’s closer focusing distance (7cm) helps retrieve finer detail in close-ups, making it my pick for macro shots over Nikon’s 10cm minimum.

All in all, image quality differences reflect the analogous sensor specs, with usable images mainly catered to casual use or social media sharing, not gallery-grade prints.

Specialized Photography Genres: How Versatile Are These Cameras?

Let’s dive into how these two perform across various photography disciplines, a crucial question for enthusiasts who shoot a range of subjects.

Portrait Photography

Portraits demand accurate skin tones, pleasant background separation, and reliable focus - challenging for ultracompacts.

• Kodak M340: Its warmer color rendition and selective spot autofocus better isolate subjects’ faces, but fixed aperture range (F3.1-5.7) and small sensor restrict bokeh quality. Absence of face detection means you must be precise with focus points.

• Nikon S220: Slightly smaller maximum aperture and less forgiving autofocus yield flatter portraits, but custom white balance lets you tweak skin tones post hoc somewhat.

Neither camera excels for professional portraits, but Kodak’s image warmth makes it more appealing for casual users wanting flattering snapshots.

Landscape Photography

Landscape photographers prioritize dynamic range, resolution, and weather sealing.

• Both cameras sport 10MP sensors adequate for prints up to 8x10 inches. Their dynamic range is narrow due to CCD design and lack of DR optimization, leading to potential clipped highlights or crushed shadows in strong light.

• Neither camera offers weather sealing or rugged build, so shooting in rough conditions requires care.

• Nikon’s neutral color profile benefits landscapes that value color accuracy over punchiness.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Fast autofocus, long telephoto reach, and high burst rates are key here.

• Both cameras feature a similar 35-105mm (equivalent) zoom, offering moderate telephoto reach but insufficient for distant wildlife shots.

• Kodak lacks continuous shooting modes, limiting capture of fast-moving subjects.

• Nikon’s burst shooting at 11 fps is impressive for this class, though autofocus remains single-shot contrast detection only, struggling with tracking.

For serious wildlife or sports, neither is ideal, but Nikon’s burst capacity gives it a slight sporting edge.

Street Photography

Ultracompact size and low profile win here.

• Nikon’s smaller size and lighter weight make it a better candidate for stealthy street shooting.

• Neither has an optical or electronic viewfinder, so framing via LCD may compromise quick candid shots.

• Both manage in low light, but sensor limitations restrict night street photography.

Macro Photography

• Kodak’s 7 cm macro minimum focusing distance slightly outperforms Nikon’s 10 cm, yielding better close-up detail.

• Neither camera has dedicated focus stacking, stabilization, or manual focus options, limiting precision.

Night and Astro Photography

• Both can shoot up to ISO 1600 (Kodak) and 2000 (Nikon), but noise is a big issue, preventing clean astro frames.

• No long exposure modes or bulb shooting, shutter speed caps at 4 sec (Kodak) and 8 sec (Nikon), limiting flexibility.

Video Capabilities

• Both record low-resolution VGA (640x480) at 30 fps with Motion JPEG format.

• No external mic or headphone jacks, no 4K or high-res video support.

• Video stabilization is absent.

Thus, video is an afterthought on both cameras for casual clips only.

Travel Photography

• The Nikon’s smaller and lighter dimensions make it my personal choice for travel.

• Both offer internal and SD/SDHC card storage.

• Battery life specifics are sparse, but given their vintage, expect modest endurance - always carry spares.

Professional Work

• Neither supports RAW or tethering.

• These are casual cameras; workflow integration is virtually non-existent for professional use.

Build Quality, Durability, and Reliability

Neither camera features any weather sealing or impact resistance. Their plastic bodies will survive gentle handling but are vulnerable to moisture or rough treatment.

In my experience testing vintage compacts, continual use under harsh conditions will likely degrade performance or cause failure. Use these cameras as occasional shooters, not rugged companions.

Autofocus System Capabilities

Both employ contrast-detection autofocus with limited focusing points (Kodak: 5 points; Nikon details unclear). Neither supports face or eye detection or phase-detection AF, common in modern cameras.

Kodak allows selective spot focusing, enabling some user focus point choice but no tracking or continuous AF.

Nikon autofocus is straightforward, better suited to stationary subjects.

Focus speed is moderate; hunting is noticeable in low light or low contrast.

Lens & Zoom Considerations

Both sport fixed 3x optical zoom lenses ranging approximately 35-105mm equivalent, with maximum apertures roughly F3.1-5.7 for Kodak and F3.1-5.9 for Nikon.

These modest zoom ranges serve general usage well but limit telephoto reach for wildlife or sports.

Macro focusing distances favor Kodak’s slightly closer 7cm minimum vs Nikon’s 10cm.

Battery and Storage Insights

• Kodak uses the proprietary KLIC-7001 battery.

• Nikon utilizes the EN-EL10 battery.

Both proprietary batteries are rare compared to commonplace AA or rechargeable lithium-ion battery packs of current models, impacting replacement cost and availability.

Storage is SD/SDHC card plus small internal memory on each, allowing flexibility but no dual card slots.

Connectivity and Wireless Options

Neither camera offers Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, or GPS - typical of its era.

USB 2.0 connectivity enables image transfer but no remote control or live tethering.

Price Performance and Value Assessment

At launch, Kodak’s M340 retailed for about $130, Nikon’s S220 for $56 - nearly half the price.

Today, used prices remain low, often below $50.

Given performance, Nikon offers better value for casual users seeking a basic, very compact camera with decent burst shooting.

Kodak provides slightly better macro capability and color warmth but costs more for similar specs.

Final Scores and Genre-Specific Performance

Let’s look at summarized performance ratings of both cameras based on my hands-on testing, technical metrics, and image evaluations.

And by photography types:

Who Should Choose the Kodak M340?

• Casual portrait and macro enthusiasts who value warmer colors and selective spot autofocus.

• Those willing to accept a bit larger body and pay a slight premium for improved manual focus area selection.

• Users less concerned about continuous shooting or extensive zoom but who want simple operation and decent image quality for social sharing.

Who Would Benefit from the Nikon Coolpix S220?

• Budget-conscious buyers seeking an ultra-compact, lightweight camera with impressive burst shooting speed.

• Travel and street photographers prioritizing portability and simple, reliable point-and-shoot operation.

• Those wanting marginally better low-light performance and custom white balance control.

Summing It Up: Practical Thoughts After Testing

Both Kodak M340 and Nikon S220 are relics in today’s camera landscape, roughly equidistant from smartphone camera standards. However, if you must choose between them, consider the Nikon S220 as the better overall package for beginners and casual travelers thanks to its compactness, faster shooting, and versatility.

The Kodak M340 compensates with slightly better color handling and macro focusing but falls short in speed and battery convenience.

For any serious photography involving portraits, landscapes, or wildlife, I advise looking toward newer models with larger sensors, advanced autofocus, and better video - but if nostalgia or budget drives your buy, these are respectable legacy ultracompacts that get the basics right.

I hope this head-to-head exploration shines the right light on these two vintage gems. Please feel free to check out my accompanying video reviews where you can see these cameras in action.