Kodak M340 vs Sony TX30: Putting Two Ultracompacts Through Our Paces

As someone who has tested thousands of cameras across the photography spectrum, few things are as revealing as stacking two ultracompacts from different eras head to head. The Kodak EasyShare M340, a 2009 entry-level ultracompact model, squaring off against Sony’s 2013 Cyber-shot DSC-TX30, feels like a telling case study in ultracompact camera evolution over those four years. Both boasting fixed lenses, similar sensor sizes, and pocket-friendly dimensions, but each with vastly different capabilities and ambitions.

Today, I’m sharing a deep-dive comparison focusing on real-world usability, imaging potential, and overall value for various photography types - from portraits and landscapes to video and travel. If you’re deciding between these two or just curious how far compact cameras have come, stay with me. I’ll draw from hands-on experience, dissect sensor tech and ergonomics, and uncover which scenarios suit each camera.

Let’s kick off by gauging how these two physically stack up.

Getting a Grip: Size, Ergonomics, and Design Layout

Ultracompacts are prized for slip-in-your-pocket size and quick handling. The Kodak M340 measures a neat 96 x 59 x 19 mm and weighs 115 grams, while the Sony TX30 is roughly the same footprint but a touch slimmer at 15 mm thickness and a hair heavier at 141 grams.

To the hand, the Kodak has a slightly chunkier feel - not bulky, but easier to hold steady without fumbling. The Sony, with its svelte profile and smooth lines, exudes a modern vibe; yet gripping it firmly, especially with gloves or in wet conditions, can challenge fingers. Both compete for pocket-friendliness, but the TX30’s slimmer build aids casual carry.

Moving to control layout, here we see clear evolution.

Kodak's M340 maintains a clean but minimalistic top deck - the shutter release and zoom rocker are present, but there are no dedicated dials or quick-access buttons for ISO, white balance, or exposure compensation. It's a point-and-shoot in the purest sense, with minimal granular control.

The Sony TX30 smartly adds a few enhancements. Though it still lacks extensive manual controls, the physical interface is more refined, with clearly marked buttons, a mode dial substituting for most shooting preferences, and a touchscreen on the rear (more on that shortly). This results in easier in-situ adjustments and faster access to features when you’re shooting fast-moving subjects or changing lighting conditions.

In this anatomy of control, we prefer the tactile simplicity of Kodak for pure point-and-shoot ease, but the Sony feels a step ahead in ergonomics when you want to push beyond snapshot territory.

Under the Hood: Sensor Technology and Image Quality

We get to the heart of photographic performance: the sensor. Both cameras employ the classic 1/2.3-inch sensor size, typical for ultracompacts, but there are meaningful differences.

The Kodak M340 relies on a 10-megapixel CCD sensor - common in its era - with a max native ISO of 1600 and a fixed anti-aliasing filter for smooth images but limited fine detail resolution. CCD sensors shine with naturalistic color rendition and moderate dynamic range but tend to struggle in low light due to higher noise.

The Sony TX30 features a more modern BSI-CMOS sensor at 18 megapixels, almost doubling resolution. Backside illumination dramatically improves light gathering, pushing the max native ISO to a lofty 12,800. While the TX30’s sensor area is roughly equivalent to the M340, the technological improvements translate to a substantial bump in image quality - particularly in noisy low-light conditions and finer detail rendition.

In side-by-side shooting, especially in daylight landscapes or well-lit indoor portraits, the Sony’s images show more crispness and colour fidelity. The Kodak’s colors sometimes feel a touch muted, with a softer look that might appeal to the nostalgia-driven snapshot fan but disappoint serious image-makers.

Viewing and Composing: LCD and Interface Experience

Since neither camera sports an electronic viewfinder, the rear LCD screen becomes critical for framing and review.

The Kodak M340 has a modest 2.7-inch, 230k-pixel fixed LCD. It’s serviceable but suffers in bright lighting with low brightness and limited viewing angles. Touch functionality is absent, meaning menus are navigated only via buttons.

By contrast, Sony’s TX30 sports a larger 3.3-inch OLED touchscreen at a crisp 1229k pixels, one of the highest-quality displays in the ultracompact space during its time. The OLED panel offers vibrant color, deep contrast, and excellent visibility outdoors. Touch operation simplifies menu navigation and enables touch-to-focus - a convenience for quick focusing decisions in dynamic scenes.

This sharper display and touch interface places the Sony a firm step ahead for instantly assessing composition, critical exposure, and focus accuracy, especially on the fly.

Autofocus and Lens Performance in Real Use

Both cameras have fixed zoom lenses, catering to broad responder needs, but performance varies.

The Kodak’s lens covers a 35–105 mm equivalent zoom with max aperture f/3.1–5.7. Modest telephoto reach is suitable for casual portraits and everyday shooting. Macro capabilities allow focusing as close as 7 cm. That said, the Kodak uses contrast-detection autofocus requiring pause for confirmation, with only 5 focus points and no continuous AF or tracking.

The Sony TX30 zooms wider to a 26–130 mm equivalent focal length at f/3.5–4.8. This lens offers substantially more reach for telephoto shots, making wildlife and sports snapshots more feasible. Its autofocus relies on a quick, sealed system (albeit no phase-detection AF) and can do bursts of up to 10 fps, a major asset for capturing fast action. Optical image stabilization further stabilizes images at longer focal lengths and lower shutter speeds.

What does this mean in practice? In a casual stroll photographing street scenes, Kodak’s M340 autofocus feels peppy but occasionally hunting, while Sony’s TX30 locks quickly and crisply, rarely missing a beat. Telephoto reach and stabilization make the Sony much more apt for wildlife or sports casual shoots - although these cameras are not professional-grade shooters, their incremental tech puts TX30 squarely in a more versatile league.

Portraits and Bokeh: Who Makes Skin Glow?

Portrait photography masters subtle rendering of skin tones and pleasing background separation (bokeh). Though both cameras have small sensors limiting background blur, there are noteworthy differences.

Kodak’s lens aperture maxes out at f/3.1 wide-angle, narrowing at telephoto. Combined with the 10 MP CCD sensor’s rendering, skin tones come out natural but somewhat flat in certain lighting, with no face/eye detection to assist focus precision on key facial features. The absence of continuous or tracking AF can cause missed focus in spontaneous portraits.

Sony’s TX30 benefits from a sharper lens with longer reach and slightly wider aperture. Crucially, it offers custom white balance, enabling more accurate skin tone correction in varying light. Its contrast-detection AF is faster and supported by touch-to-focus, though lacking face detection limits precision somewhat. Even so, the higher resolution sensor captures subtle texture and color gradations better, producing more flattering portraits.

Neither camera delivers DSLR or mirrorless-level bokeh, but for casual portraits and people shots, the TX30 creates a more refined output thanks to sensor and processing strengths.

Landscape and Travel: Dynamic Range and Weather Sealing

Landscape photographers prize dynamic range to capture shadow and highlight nuance, plus ruggedness to withstand environmental challenges.

Both cameras sport 1/2.3-inch sensors, not renowned for stellar dynamic range compared to APS-C or full-frame models, but the Sony’s BSI-CMOS tech offers a measurable edge. The Kodak’s CCD tends to clip highlights earlier and lose shadow detail in high-contrast scenes.

Looking at form factor, weight, and weather resistance:

• Kodak M340: Lightweight but no environmental sealing.
• Sony TX30: Slightly heavier but offers environmental sealing, guarding against moisture and dust - an exceptional feature for ultracompacts targeting outdoors enthusiasts.

This gives Sony a practical advantage for landscape shooters traveling in less forgiving environments. The Kodak feels best suited to fair weather, casual hikes, or everyday travel.

Wildlife and Sports: Speed, Autofocus, and Buffering

Rapid autofocus, effective burst shooting, and telephoto reach define wildlife and sports-ready cameras.

The Kodak M340’s lack of continuous AF, sparse focus points, and slow shutter max of 1/4000 sec position it firmly in casual territory. No burst mode means capturing decisive moments requires patience and luck.

Sony’s TX30, with continuous 10 fps burst, stabilized zoom lens reaching 130 mm, and faster autofocus, is a small but notable step up for beginners shooting pets, kids, or casual outdoor sports. It can track moving subjects with a better success rate, though the lack of face or animal eye detection limits precision.

Sony’s ISO range, topping at 12800, also aids shooting action in dimmer ambient light. Kodak’s max ISO1600 will struggle considerably in low light sports.

While neither replaces professional wildlife or sports gear, the Sony TX30 is a far better option for enthusiasts experimenting with these demanding genres.

Street and Macro: Discretion and Close Focus

Urban shooters want light, discreet cameras with quick AF and keen macro abilities.

Both cameras are small enough to fade into street settings. Kodak’s less prominent design and lighter weight make it less intimidating to subjects. However, the Kodak lacks image stabilization, so in lower light shutter speeds slow down, increasing blur risk.

The Sony TX30, though heavier, with a stabilizer and touchscreen AF, better suits spontaneous urban photography. Its wider lens helps capture environmental context.

For macro, Kodak’s 7 cm minimum focus distance is straightforward for closeups but limited by a slow aperture and no focus assist. Sony doesn't list a dedicated macro focus range but benefits from more sophisticated lens optics and stabilization, indirectly enhancing close-up capability.

Night and Astrophotography: ISO and Exposure

Low-light performance separates ultracompact contenders most obviously.

Kodak’s CCD sensor is noisier and maxes at ISO1600, limiting usable high ISO shots. No manual exposure modes or bracketing further hamper night shooting.

Sony's CMOS sensor with ISO12800 max and custom white balance presents more possibilities. While both cameras lack manual exposure priority modes and true long exposure customizations (no timelapse recording or bulb modes), the Sony’s faster burst (allowing bracket stacks) and stabilization give it an edge for night scenes and casual astrophotography.

Neither is a specialist here, but for spontaneous evening cityscapes, the TX30 is the better tool.

Video Capabilities: Resolution and Stabilization

In the video arena, ultracompacts often come up short.

Kodak’s M340 records at basic 640x480 VGA resolution at 30 fps, encoded in Motion JPEG - rudimentary at best, with no external mic input, stabilization, or HD. Frame rates and quality are only fit for quick family vids or low-res web sharing.

Sony TX30 steps up substantially with 1080p Full HD video at 60 fps, optical image stabilization, and a touchscreen interface for framing. No microphone input or headphone jack limits professional audio control, but video sharpness and fluidity are leagues ahead.

If video recording matters, Sony is the clear winner.

Professional Features, Workflow, and Connectivity

For professional use, cameras must support advanced raw formats, robust connectivity, and flexible workflow options.

Both the Kodak M340 and Sony TX30 lack RAW support, limiting post-processing latitude. Neither includes Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or GPS, reflecting their era and market segment.

The Sony TX30’s environmental sealing offers some reassurance in toughness but beyond that, neither model targets professional workflows.

Storage-wise, both use SD/SDHC cards with a single slot and USB 2.0 wired transfer. Battery life details are sparse, but expect modest endurance given compact batteries.

Evaluating the Score: Performance and Genre Suitability

Let’s put it all together.

Kodak M340 front Kodak M340 screen back Sony TX30 screen back

Image sharpness, dynamic range, and color rendition distinctly favor the Sony TX30. The Kodak’s output can feel soft and sometimes washed out in comparison, but it still produces acceptable images suitable for casual snapshots and prints.

Burst rate and autofocus speed sharply tilt towards Sony, relevant for action and wildlife enthusiasts. Video, stabilization, and interface advances underscore the Sony’s superiority.

Build quality and weather sealing also side with the Sony, enhancing shoot-anywhere freedom.

Price-wise, the Kodak M340 remains an affordable ultracompact option (~$130), while Sony TX30 commands roughly $230 - justified by its technological strides.

Evaluating genre-specific scores reinforces these takeaways:

• Portraits: Sony - better skin tone accuracy and detail; Kodak - softer, less reliable focus
• Landscape: Sony - superior dynamic range and weather sealing; Kodak - adequate for casual daytime shots
• Wildlife: Sony - faster AF, longer zoom, burst shooting; Kodak - too limited
• Sports: Sony - 10 fps bursts and stabilization; Kodak - no burst, slower AF
• Street: Sony - touchscreen, stabilization; Kodak - better concealment but fewer controls
• Macro: Sony - better lens, stabilization; Kodak - competitive but less refined
• Night/Astro: Sony - higher ISO ceiling; Kodak - noisy and restricted
• Video: Sony - Full HD 60p; Kodak - VGA legacy
• Travel: Sony - durable, versatile; Kodak - ultra lightweight, budget basic
• Professional: Neither ideal; Sony’s slightly better build and features help

Who Should Choose Which?

Beneath all this analysis lies a simple question: which camera ends up better for your needs and budget?

Choose the Kodak EasyShare M340 if:

• You want a pocket-friendly, lightweight ultra-basic camera
• Your budget is tight and you just want quick family snapshots
• You value simplicity without navigation complexity
• High-resolution, video, and fast AF are non-essential
• You prefer CCD coloration with a softer aesthetic

Pick the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX30 if:

• You seek better image quality with more megapixels and usable low light
• You want advanced features like optical stabilization and Full HD video
• You shoot action, wildlife, travel frequently and need faster AF & burst mode
• You appreciate environmental sealing for rugged shooting
• You want a touchscreen and finer control in a similarly compact package

Conclusion: The Compact Camera Tech Leap

Though both cameras claim the ultracompact label, the four years separating the Kodak M340 and Sony TX30 tell a tale of distinct progression in sensor tech, interface ergonomics, and shooting versatility.

While the Kodak remained firmly rooted in the snapshot tradition, Sony’s TX30 began pushing compacts into more broadly capable photo tools. This carefully measured upgrade path is evident from sensor resolution, lens reach, burst speed, stabilization, to display clarity and environmental tolerance.

For photography enthusiasts seeking a casual, no-frills point-and-shoot, Kodak’s M340 still ticks boxes at an entry-level price. But for anyone chasing more creativity, improved image quality, and flexibility across genres - including video - the Sony TX30 is the smarter ultracompact companion.

I hope this detailed comparison, grounded in direct experience and technical insight, helps you choose the right camera for your photographic journey. As always, testing cameras in your own shooting contexts offers the best preview of what fits your style.

Happy shooting!

If you want to review the photos and scores again here are the visual summaries and technical info once more:

Kodak M340 front Kodak M340 screen back Sony TX30 screen back