Kodak M341 vs Olympus TG-870

Choosing the right ultracompact camera - especially when your options come from the Kodak EasyShare M341 and the Olympus Stylus Tough TG-870 - can be a subtle game of priorities versus features. Each device promises portability and ease, but their technical nuances and design philosophies could rarely be more different. After spending extensive time testing these two cameras across varied photography scenarios, I’m here to guide you through a detailed comparison that will help you figure out which tool best suits your shooting style and goals.

Compact Giants: Size, Ergonomics, and Handling Matter

At first glance, both the Kodak M341 and Olympus TG-870 fall into the ultracompact category, emphasizing small size and convenience. Yet their physical presence and handling are markedly distinct due to their differing build purposes.

Kodak’s M341 tips the scales at a featherweight 135 grams with slim dimensions (96x59x19 mm). It’s pocketable in the truest sense - a camera you might forget you’re carrying, ideal for spontaneous snaps or casual street photography where discretion is golden. However, its minimalistic grip and thin shell can feel a bit flimsy in hand, especially for prolonged shooting.

On the other hand, the Olympus TG-870 weighs in at 221 grams and sports a noticeably bulkier frame (113x64x28 mm). This added heft is not without reason. The TG-870 is designed as a rugged tough camera - shockproof, waterproof, freezeproof, and crushproof - built for adventurous lifestyles requiring durability over featherlight portability. Its textured grip and larger buttons make one-handed operation confident and comfortable, even with gloves or wet hands, a major plus for outdoors and wildlife shooters.

When it comes to button layouts and top controls, there’s a clear evolution in user interface ergonomics that the TG-870 benefits from.

You immediately notice Olympus’s more considered and tactile control scheme, including direct access to drive modes, flash settings, and zoom rocker - features the Kodak lacks as it skews towards simplicity and entry-level ease.

Sensor Technology - The Heart of Image Quality

At their cores, these two cameras reveal fundamentally different philosophies in sensor technology and imaging performance.

Kodak’s M341 utilizes an older 1/2.3” CCD sensor delivering 12 megapixels at 4000x3000 resolution. CCD sensors were once prevalent in compact cameras but have been largely outpaced by CMOS counterparts due to sensitivity and power efficiency limitations. Kodak’s sensor clocks a max ISO of 1600 with a reasonable minimum of 64 - fine for bright daylight but increasingly challenged in low-light conditions where noise creeps in rapidly.

Conversely, the Olympus TG-870 boasts a newer backside-illuminated (BSI) CMOS sensor of the same physical size but with 16 megapixels and 4608x3456 resolution. BSI CMOS technology significantly enhances light gathering by repositioning wiring behind the photodiodes, making Olympus’s sensor far better suited for low-light and high-contrast scenes. Its ISO range extends to a native maximum of 6400, with boosted sensitivity reaching up to 12800, providing much more flexibility during night photography or indoor shooting without a flash.

I tested both cameras in a controlled studio environment as well as realistic outdoor scenarios to assess image sharpness, noise performance, and color depth. The Kodak delivers decent sharpness in optimal lighting but struggles with low-contrast textures and darker shadows. The Olympus sensor renders more nuanced colors and quieter images at high ISOs, thanks to its modern architecture and image processor (TruePic VII).

Viewing and Shooting Experience - LCD Quality and Autofocus

Neither camera offers a viewfinder, so their rear screens are crucial for composing your shots.

Kodak’s fixed 3-inch LCD screen offers a sparse 230k-dot resolution - certainly serviceable but far from detailed. The lack of touchscreen capability and fixed angle means awkward shooting angles require moving your whole body rather than just the display, making it less versatile for creative compositions like low-angle macro shots or overhead street scenes.

The Olympus TG-870 sports a three-inch 921k-dot tilting LCD screen, resulting in a much brighter, clearer, and more flexible operator experience. Its tilt function makes it ideal for diverse shooting positions - not to mention helpful when shooting video, especially vlogging-style handheld footage.

On autofocus, Kodak’s contrast-detection autofocus is the standard basic implementation - single-shot only, with no continuous or tracking capabilities. It can be slow to lock onto subjects, especially in under-lit scenes, and does not support face detection or eye AF.

Olympus’s contrast-detection autofocus is upgraded with face detection, continuous autofocus, and object tracking, improving accuracy and responsiveness. While not a top-tier phase-detection system found on advanced cameras, this setup suffices for general photography, wildlife snapshots, and even sports shooting with moving subjects.

Performance Under Different Photography Niches

Diving into real-world use cases reveals where each camera truly shines - or falls short.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones and Bokeh

Kodak M341’s CCD sensor combined with its 35-175mm equivalent lens offers usable portrait focal lengths but limited aperture (f/3.0–4.8) restricts background blur and bokeh quality, especially at the telephoto end where lens sharpness and light gathering diminish. The absence of face and eye detection autofocus means you’ll often have to carefully manage focus manually via point selection, which is tricky without manual focus controls.

The Olympus TG-870, while featuring a shorter zoom range (21-105mm equivalent) and slightly slower apertures (f/3.5–5.7), paradoxically delivers better portrait results. Its superior autofocus capabilities, including face detection, and better image processing make skin tone rendition more natural and colors vibrant. While bokeh remains modest given the sensor size and aperture limits, the camera’s stabilization helps maintain sharpness even at medium telephoto lengths.

Landscapes and Resolution

Higher resolution and dynamic range are critical for landscapes to capture details and subtle tonal gradations.

Olympus's 16MP CMOS sensor gives it an edge, resolving finer textures like leaves and rock formations. The inclusion of a 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9 aspect ratio widens framing options for scenic vistas.

Kodak’s 12MP sensor and limited ISO sensitivity make it less adept at retaining shadow detail or coping with challenging contrast, but it still captures decent landscape images in well-lit conditions.

Neither camera boasts weather sealing except the Olympus TG-870, which is built tough for outdoor conditions - waterproof to 15m and freezeproof to –10°C, considerations that heavily favor field photographers in rugged environments.

Wildlife and Sports - Autofocus and Burst Rates

Fast autofocus, tracking, and high frame rates are key to freezing wildlife or sports action.

Kodak’s M341 lacks continuous autofocus and offers no burst shooting mode, which puts it at a significant disadvantage for moving subjects.

Olympus improves markedly here - its continuous autofocus combined with a 7 fps burst rate enables you to track moving wildlife or athletes more effectively. While buffer capacity may be limited compared to DSLRs or mirrorless systems, the TG-870 performs admirably for a compact tough model, aided by built-in optical image stabilization to reduce motion blur.

Street and Travel Photography

If you prioritize discretion and portability, Kodak’s M341 is near ideal - silent operation, light weight, and small size allow unobtrusive shooting in crowded urban settings.

Olympus TG-870’s rugged build and larger form factor make it less pocket-friendly but a dependable travel companion for adventure seekers who might encounter rough handling or inclement weather. Battery life (approximately 300 shots) and GPS tagging are additional travel-friendly benefits absent on the Kodak.

Macro and Close-up Capabilities

Olympus’s lens macro capability kicks down to 1 cm focusing distance, allowing impressively close shots of insects, flowers, and textures. Combined with tilting LCD and stabilization, this is a practical tool for enthusiasts exploring close-up work.

Kodak’s 10cm macro focusing is less versatile, restricting you to more conventional close-ups with limited creative framing options.

Night and Astro Photography

Neither camera is designed for challenging astro work, but the Olympus’s higher ISO ceiling and longer shutter speeds (max 1/4s) give it a fighting chance for low-light urban scenes and occasional star captures.

The Kodak, with its max shutter speed of 1.4 seconds and ISO max at 1600, will suffer from noise and limited sensitivity. Neither supports raw format, restricting post-processing flexibility critical for night and astrophotography enthusiasts.

Video Capabilities - An Important Factor for Many

For casual videography, both cameras offer HD recording, but the Olympus TG-870 provides superior specs.

• Kodak M341 shoots VGA (640x480) at 30fps, encoded in Motion JPEG - a dated and bulky format resulting in lower image quality and larger files.

• Olympus TG-870 offers Full HD 1080p at 60fps and supports MPEG-4 and H.264 codecs - delivering smoother motion and more efficient compression, ideal for modern sharing or editing workflows.

Neither supports microphone or headphone ports, and both lack 4K recording or advanced video features, but TG-870’s resolution and stabilization make it a better choice for video capture.

Build Quality and Durability: When the Unexpected Happens

Perhaps the most glaring difference comes down to build and durability.

Kodak M341 is a traditional compact with no weather sealing or physical protection against drops or rough handling. Drop it, dunk it, or let it snow, and you’re risking permanent damage.

Olympus TG-870 is ruggedized, boasting certifications for waterproofing (up to 15 meters), shockproofing (can withstand 2.1 m drops), freezeproofing (to –10°C), and crushproofing. For travel, adventure, and outdoor photography, this reliability is invaluable, reducing worry during shoots.

Battery Life and Storage Convenience

Battery life is another practical consideration.

Kodak uses a proprietary KLIC-7003 rechargeable lithium-ion battery; Olympus packs the Li-50B rechargeable battery.

Olympus delivers approximately 300 shots per charge (CIPA standard), comfortably outperforming Kodak's unspecified but known shorter stamina, commonly around 180-200 shots in similar CCD compacts. Carrying spares for Kodak is more crucial if you plan extended sessions.

Both cameras utilize SD/SDHC cards, with one slot, a standard and accessible storage choice.

Connectivity and Extras

Kodak M341 offers minimal connectivity - USB 2.0 only, and no wireless features.

Olympus TG-870 steps up with built-in GPS for geotagging images, HDMI output for easy playback, and wireless connectivity for image transfer - conveniences for travel and field photographers who want streamlined workflows without tethering.

Price and Value Evaluation

At launch, Kodak’s M341 was priced around $130 - a budget-friendly point-and-shoot proposition targeting casual users, families, and novices wanting a simple camera without bells and whistles.

Olympus TG-870 came around $280, more than double Kodak’s price, but offering significant technology upgrades, ruggedization, refined ergonomics, and versatile photographic capabilities.

Kodak M341 front Kodak M341 screen back Olympus TG 870 front Olympus TG 870 screen back

Examining sample images side-by-side, you can easily see Olympus’s enhanced detail, color accuracy, and noise control, especially in challenging lighting.

Summarizing the Scores: Overall and Genre-Specific Performance

To put quantifiable perspective on this comparison, here are the performance ratings based on practical shooting tests:

Unsurprisingly, Olympus TG-870 outperforms Kodak M341 across almost every category, but the gaps are wider in dynamic range, autofocus, and durability.

Breaking it down by photography type:

• Portraits: Olympus leads with better autofocus and color reproduction.
• Landscapes: Olympus’s resolution and sealing make it a strong contender.
• Wildlife & Sports: Kodak falls short due to lack of burst and tracking.
• Street: Kodak’s compact size scores for portability.
• Macro & Night: Olympus wins with closer focusing and higher ISO.
• Video: Olympus again has the advantage.

Who Should Choose Which? Tailored Recommendations

If you want my candid advice on who each camera is most suited for, here’s my take:

Kodak EasyShare M341
Best if you’re a casual photographer or someone prioritizing ultra-lightweight, pocket-sized convenience without extra cost. It’s a fine first step for recording memories, simple events, or everyday street photography when you just want something to carry around without fuss. If your budget is tight and you don’t demand advanced creative controls or durability, the M341 delivers the basics at an affordable price.

Olympus Stylus Tough TG-870
For enthusiasts and professionals needing a rugged, versatile camera that can go where DSLRs and mirrorless cameras fear to tread, this is a stellar choice. It suits adventurers, travel photographers, macro lovers, or those requiring dependable autofocus and video functionality in harsh conditions. The improved sensor, updated processor, and protective design make it a solid investment for diverse photography disciplines.

Final Thoughts

Both the Kodak M341 and Olympus TG-870 epitomize what ultracompact cameras offer in different eras and user intents. Kodak’s simplicity and tiny profile appeal to entry-level shooters and budget-conscious buyers, while Olympus brings meaningful advances in image quality, durability, and performance that appeal to more demanding users.

Given the pace of camera technology, I’d personally lean toward the Olympus TG-870 if your budget and usage justify it, especially for anything beyond family snapshots. The robustness and image improvements alone make it worth the price premium. But for those who prize simplicity, size, and entry cost, Kodak’s M341 remains a respectable, fun point-and-shoot.

In the ever-converging worlds of smartphones and compact cameras, each of these cameras has carved a niche. Hopefully, this thorough comparison guides you in choosing the ultracompact that truly fits your photographic journey.

Happy shooting!