Kodak M340 vs Sony Cyber-shot W560: An Ultracompact Camera Duel from the Early 2010s

When rummaging through the archives of early digital compact cameras, the Kodak EasyShare M340 and Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W560 emerge as intriguing contenders. Both sit squarely in the ultracompact category and were designed with casual shooters and enthusiasts craving a pocket-friendly companion in mind. Though separated by a couple of years - Kodak's from early 2009 and Sony's from early 2011 - comparing these two reveals insights into how camera tech evolved in that era and what practical trade-offs users faced.

I’ve spent countless hours testing ultracompacts over the years, often with mixed feelings about compromises made for pocketability. Let’s unpack these two with the seasoned eye of someone who’s trawled through hundreds of such cameras to illuminate their capabilities (and limitations). This comparison isn’t just a bullet-pointed spec sheet on steroids - it’s grounded in real world usability, tech insights, and the subtleties that make or break everyday photography.

How Do You Hold ‘Em? Physical Size, Ergonomics, and Handling

First impressions often come from how a camera feels in hand (longtime pros nodding here). Both the Kodak M340 and Sony W560 strive for ultra portability, but nuance in design differentiates the user experience distinctly.

The Kodak M340 measures 96x59x19 mm and weighs 115 g, while the Sony W560 is a tad more svelte at 94x56x19 mm and 110 g. That might seem like splitting hairs - until you pick them up side-by-side. Kodak’s slightly wider grip lends a bit more stability for slipping fingers around the body. Sony’s dimensions emphasize slimness, but that results in somewhat less secure handling, especially for those with larger hands.

Both cameras have a plastic build typical of the period - neither boasts weather sealing or ruggedness. This renders them most suitable for casual snapshots rather than “rough and tumble” travel or outdoor conditions. Button placement favors simplicity over customization, which aligns with their target audience.

Looking down at the control layout…

… the Sony W560 covers essential shooting functions with a straightforward interface plus dedicated buttons for flash modes and a four-way navigation pad. Conversely, Kodak keeps things minimal with fewer physical controls but compensates with a somewhat larger shutter button, which I found responded with more crisp feedback during testing. These subtle differences impact shooting speed and tactile satisfaction - something ultracompact shooters should consider.

Who Wins the Pixel Wars? Sensor Size and Image Quality

Zooming in on image quality, the heart of any camera is the sensor. Both Kodak and Sony use a 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor measuring 6.17x4.55 mm, but the Kodak carries a 10-megapixel resolution while Sony pushes to 14 megapixels.

Prima facie, Sony W560’s higher resolution suggests more detail capture - I’ve always found more pixels can only help if they don’t compromise noise or dynamic range. In practice, Kodak’s 10 MP sensor yields slightly cleaner files with less visible noise at ISO 100 to ISO 400 (their ISO ranges max out at 1600 for Kodak and 3200 for Sony, but higher ISO images are grainy for both).

What about color reproduction? Kodak sticks to a familiar CCD tone palette - rendering skin tones with warmth but sometimes at the expense of subtle hues. Sony’s BIONZ image processor injected a tad more punch and vibrancy but could overdo saturation in daylight. Neither supports RAW, saddling users with JPEGs only - a bummer for more serious editing workflows.

In terms of lens specs and aperture - Kodak’s 35-105 mm (35mm equivalent) zoom with F3.1-5.7 aperture is a modest 3x zoom. Sony’s broader 26-104 mm zoom at F2.7-5.7 extends coverage slightly wider and brighter on the short end, which benefits indoor and low-light shooting. Both have a similar macro focus range (Kodak at 7cm, Sony tighter at 5cm), so close-ups are roughly comparable.

A Screen Door to Your World: LCD and Interface Quality

The LCD screen is your eyes when no viewfinder is present - which is the case for both these cameras.

Kodak’s 2.7-inch color LCD runs at 230k dots, while Sony pushes a larger 3.0-inch “Clear Photo LCD” with the same 230k dot resolution. That means Sony’s screen feels easier on the eyes with more comfortable framing and review, though neither is particularly high-resolution by today’s standards. In challenging sunlight, both tend toward washed-out visuals, but Sony’s LCD holds up slightly better.

Neither camera has touchscreen functionality - a non-issue here given their vintage - but Kodak lacks any gesture-based controls or quick menu access, making fast parameter tweaks a bit clumsier.

Sony offers custom white balance - a boon for accurate colors in mixed lighting - while Kodak sticks to fixed presets.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: Catching the Moment

When it comes to focus speed and reliability, ultracompacts often struggle due to modest AF systems. Here, Kodak and Sony present quite different AF philosophies.

The Kodak M340 features a 5-point contrast-detection AF system with single AF only - no continuous tracking or face detection. It’s sluggish in dim environments and struggles with moving subjects. I recall futilely trying to capture a quick pet movement with it; inevitable blur and missed focus ensued.

Sony’s W560 improves with contrast-detection AF boasting 9 points plus multi-area focus options, but still no face detection or continuous AF tracking. It’s marginally faster and sometimes snappier in daylight but still far from sports or wildlife ready.

Neither camera supports burst mode or fast frame rates (Kodak none specified; Sony offers 1fps), so forget about capturing decisive action shots.

Lights, Flash, Action: Built-in Flash and Exposure

Both cameras pack a built-in flash suitable for indoor fill-in and close subjects.

Kodak’s flash reaches roughly 3.5 m and offers Auto, Fill-in, Red-Eye Reduction, and Off modes. Sony’s is very similar, extending a slight edge with 3.8 m range and a “Slow Sync” mode that lets shutter and flash durations blend - helpful for night portraits with ambient light.

Exposure flexibility is limited - no manual or priority shooting modes on either. Kodak max shutter speed clocks at 1/4000s, while Sony pegs at 1/1600s. The faster shutter on Kodak is enticing but overshadowed by the aperture and ISO limits.

On exposure aggregation, Sony’s exposure metering options include Center Weighting and Spot, similar to Kodak, balanced for easy exposure but not granular exposure locking.

Video Capabilities: Small-Screen Movies

Neither camera is geared for video aficionados, but both attempt modest video capture.

Kodak M340 offers 640x480 resolution (VGA) at 30fps using Motion JPEG codec. It’s basic, with no audio input or stabilization.

Sony W560 ups the ante to 1280x720 HD at 30fps (MPEG-4), plus 640x480 fallback. Optical image stabilization helps reduce shakes during handheld filming, which is a major advantage in this category and produces smoother video.

Connectivity-wise, Sony offers Eye-Fi wireless card compatibility (a novel feature then) and HDMI output - convenient for direct playback. Kodak is limited to USB 2.0 data transfer only, which means tethered transfers and no remote control.

Diverse Photography Disciplines: Strengths and Shortcomings

So how do these cameras fare if you intend to shoot specific genres? Let’s drill into that using my hands-on experience and technical insights.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tone Fidelity and Bokeh

Neither camera has face detection or eye detection autofocus, so sharp focus on subjects can be spotty. Kodak’s color rendition is warmer but sometimes shifts hues subtly, while Sony’s colors punch more vividly but can oversaturate in daylight. Both have small sensors and slow apertures limiting background blur, so portrait bokeh is generally uninspiring.

Still, in good light, Kodak produces pleasing skin tones for casual portraits. Sony’s wider angle zoom sometimes introduces distortion around facial edges, so be mindful with framing.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Detail

Landscape shooters crave wide dynamic range and crisp detail. Both sensors struggle with highlights and shadows, especially in high contrast scenes. Kodak’s lower pixel count yields slightly less noise but Sony’s increased resolution captures more fine textures.

Neither camera has weather sealing or rugged builds, limiting outdoor versatility. Kodak max ISO 1600 vs Sony 3200 gives an edge in low light for Sony, but only at cost of noise.

Overall, landscape results are average; neither excels but for casual travel snaps are acceptable.

Wildlife and Sports: Autofocus Speed and Burst Rates

Here the cameras falter. Lack of continuous AF, slow focus acquisition, and absence of burst make rapid subjects nearly impossible to capture sharply or in meaningful series.

Sony’s 9-point AF is better but still just adequate for stationary or slow-moving subjects. None can use telephoto lenses beyond their built-in zooms, resulting in limited reach.

Street Photography: Discretion and Low Light

Their small size suits discreet shooting, but slow autofocus and lack of silencing modes mean you might miss candid moments. Low light performance is mediocre - ISO noise and slow apertures hamper night street shooting.

Sony’s optical stabilization helps, but shutter lag remains noticeable in both.

Macro Photography: Close-up Precision

With macro focusing at 5cm (Sony) and 7cm (Kodak), macro enthusiasts get basic functionality. Neither offers focus stacking or advanced close-up modes, but for casual flower or object shots under daylight they do the job.

Night and Astro Photography: High ISO Performance and Exposure

Neither camera shines with astro. Max ISO settings (1600 for Kodak, 3200 Sony) yield noisy images. Long exposures are hampered by limited shutter speeds and lack of manual control.

Kodak can reach 1/4000s shutter speed (useful for bright daylight), but it does not offer long-exposure modes for stars or nightscapes, putting it at a distinct disadvantage.

Video and Travel: Portability, Battery, and Multimedia

For video, Sony W560’s HD capture and image stabilization outscore Kodak’s VGA offering hands down. HDMI output and Eye-Fi card support also position it better for casual multimedia users.

On travel utility, Sony’s slightly smaller size and versatility (wider zoom, better video) make it a preferred choice for backpackers wanting an all-rounder pocket camera. Battery life details are sparse, but Sony uses the NP-BN1 battery consistent with many popular models, offering decent endurance. Kodak’s KLIC-7001 battery is also compact but not as prevalent worldwide.

Memory compatibility favors Sony too - supports SD, SDHC, SDXC, and Sony Memory Stick formats, adding flexibility over Kodak’s SD/SDHC slot alone.

Locking in Value: Price and Feature Balance

At launch, both hovered around the $130-$140 mark, attracting budget-conscious buyers.

Given its newer release and headaches of real-world usage, Sony’s W560 delivers better feature density: higher resolution, optical stabilization, HD video, and broader storage format compatibility at a comparable price. Kodak’s M340 is barebones but keeps things simple.

Neither is a powerhouse by modern standards, but if you must pick one retro ultracompact for casual fun, Sony offers more bang for buck.

The Final Verdict: Who Should Buy Which?

Here’s a quick snapshot scoring overview reflecting my extensive testing.

And how they fare across photography genres…

• For casual snapshots and beginner photographers on a budget: Kodak M340 is a simple, no-fuss shooter. It’s forgiving and straightforward - great for grandparents or kids starting with a camera. However, don’t expect pro image quality or flexibility.

• For enthusiasts seeking an entry-level ultracompact with decent video and better zoom: Sony W560 wins on features, particularly with image stabilization and HD video. It suits casual travel, everyday photography, and light multimedia needs better.

• For anyone aiming to shoot action, portraits with precision, or nightscapes: Neither camera is adequate. Consider modern alternatives or more advanced compacts for those disciplines.

Wrapping Up: Reflections on Ultracompacts from a Bygone Era

In this age of smartphones and mirrorless marvels, looking at the Kodak M340 and Sony W560 is like stepping into a quaint photography time capsule. These cameras embody the trade-offs engineers made to cram decent optics and sensors into tiny boxes without breaking the bank or complexity meter.

While neither is a powerhouse, both filled niche roles in their day. I found the Sony slightly more compelling operationally, thanks largely to its image stabilization and video capabilities. Kodak’s charm is in its simplicity and classic color rendering.

For photography enthusiasts researching retro gear, the real takeaway: these cameras remind us how far we've come - with features we now consider baseline (touchscreens, face detection, 4K video) totally absent here. Yet, the pure joy of pressing a shutter button on a pocket-sized camera remains timeless.

Sample Photos: A Picture Tells the Story

Let’s let the images speak for themselves. Below are side-by-side JPEG files straight from the cameras, resized but otherwise unchanged.

Kodak M340 front Kodak M340 screen back Sony W560 front Sony W560 screen back

Notice slightly crisper textures from Sony, although Kodak's images appear less noisy in shaded areas. Subtle differences in saturation and contrast are also evident.

In closing, if you’re collecting vintage compacts or hunting affordable ultracompacts on a shoestring, both Kodak M340 and Sony W560 merit consideration - but prioritize Sony for more versatility and better multimedia function. The Kodak is a sweet, barebones starter with nostalgic value.

Regardless of your choice, remember to temper expectations and savor the simple act of capturing moments on these ultracompact companions from an earlier digital era. Happy shooting!