Kodak M380 vs Nikon Coolpix S02: A Hands-On Comparison of Two Ultracompact Cameras for Passionate Photographers

When it comes to ultracompact cameras, the balance between portability, image quality, and practical features can make or break your experience - whether you are a casual snapshooter, a dedicated enthusiast, or a pro looking for a pocketable backup. Today, I want to dive deep into a head-to-head comparison of two cameras from the lower end of the compact spectrum with surprisingly distinct personalities: the Kodak EasyShare M380 (announced in 2009) and the Nikon Coolpix S02 (released in 2013). Both pack fixed lenses, modest specs, and affordable price tags, but scratching beneath the surface reveals a lot about how design philosophies and technology choices evolved in that era.

Throughout this article, I’ll share practical insights from testing these cameras side-by-side, analyzing sensor quality, autofocus performance, video capabilities, and suitability across photography genres - all based on thousands of hours of camera review experience. You’ll see where these little shooters excel, where they stumble, and for whom each one truly shines, so you can make an informed decision beyond marketing buzz.

Let’s unpack these two pocket-sized contenders - and promise, it gets interesting.

Pocketability and Ergonomics: How Big a Deal Is Size When You Shoot?

The Kodak M380 and Nikon S02 are both bona fide ultracompacts, but there’s a noticeable difference in size and weight. The Kodak measures 100 x 60 x 20 mm and weighs about 155 grams, whereas the Nikon is smaller and lighter at 77 x 51 x 18 mm and 100 grams.

From my testing, the Kodak’s slightly larger footprint translates into a more comfortable grip despite the thin profile. If you tend to hold your camera with “clubs for thumbs” like me, the M380’s beefier body gives you a bit more control, especially for steady shots and navigating controls. The Nikon S02’s petite size is pocket-friendly to an extreme degree - I mean, it’s almost as small as some smartphones - but that comes with trade-offs in handling. The buttons feel tiny and slightly fidgety in your fingers.

Also worth noting: neither camera features a traditional viewfinder, pushing you to rely on their rear LCDs for framing. While that’s expected for ultracompacts, the difference in LCD size and usability (which we’ll discuss next) impacts the actual shooting comfort big time.

Controls and User Interface: Minimalism vs. Practicality

Looking down at the top of these cameras, you get a real sense of how each brand approached usability. The Kodak M380 sticks to a very straightforward button layout with a clearly labeled zoom control, power button, and shutter release. Buttons are tactile, reasonably spaced, and offer predictable feedback - meaning you won’t shoot blindly often.

On the flip side, the Nikon Coolpix S02 cuts corners on physical controls. With its tiny body, button placement feels cramped, and the tactile response leaves something to be desired. The S02 does feature a touchscreen interface (a rarity for ultracompacts back then), which can help with settings navigation and focus point selection, but the small 2.7-inch screen limits fingertip precision and can be frustrating under bright daylight.

Personally, I found that if you want quick access to exposure or flash controls during a street photography walk, the Kodak’s buttons gave me an edge. The Nikon’s touchscreen is a mixed bag - neat on paper, but you’ll want gloves off and patience on hand.

Sensor Analysis and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Both cameras sport tiny sensors by today’s standards, but their sensor specs differ enough to cause measurable effects on image quality.

• Kodak M380: Equipped with a 1/2.3” CCD sensor measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm, boasting a 10-megapixel resolution.
• Nikon S02: Features a smaller 1/3” CMOS sensor (4.8 x 3.6 mm) but pushes up the megapixels to 13.

Now, you might think bigger pixel count automatically means sharper images, right? Not quite. From my tests, the Kodak’s larger sensor surface area (28.07 mm² vs. Nikon’s 17.28 mm²) translates to better light-gathering ability, resulting in superior dynamic range and cleaner low-light performance at base ISOs.

CCD sensors traditionally excel at color fidelity and noise control at lower ISOs, which the Kodak demonstrates well despite its age. The Nikon’s CMOS sensor offers faster readout and better power efficiency, but the smaller size combined with more pixels means noisier images and more aggressive in-camera processing to clean up noise - sometimes at the expense of detail.

The Kodak’s max ISO tops out at 1600 native with no extended modes, while the Nikon supports ISO 1600 native starting at 125, but in practice, image quality degrades rapidly beyond ISO 400 on both.

In daylight and well-lit scenes, the Nikon S02 can produce sharper images thanks to its denser detail, but Kodak’s softer, warmer images come with less noise and more pleasing colors, which I personally found better for portraits and general use.

Live View and Display: Composing and Reviewing Your Shots

The Kodak’s 3-inch fixed LCD with 230k dots is slightly larger than Nikon’s 2.7-inch, but both are relatively low resolution by modern standards, making pixel peeping tricky. Neither screen swivels or tilts, so shooting from awkward angles is less flexible.

The Nikon’s edge comes from its touchscreen functionality and anti-reflection coating, which improves outdoor visibility marginally. But remember, tiny screen real estate plus touchscreen can sometimes mean mis-taps and awkward navigation, especially when used with sweaty fingers or gloves.

The Kodak doesn’t have a touchscreen, which means relying on physical buttons for focus, exposure, and menu navigation. This might feel outdated, but it reduces accidental operations - a boon for street or action shooters who want to keep things simple.

Autofocus Systems: How Fast and Accurate Are They?

Autofocus can make or break your shooting experience, especially with ultracompacts where focus speed and accuracy generally lag behind higher-end gear.

The Kodak M380 uses contrast-detection autofocus with 25 focus points - quite generous coverage for an entry-level ultracompact. However, it lacks face or eye detection, which means it can struggle with moving subjects or complex scenes. My tests showed that it can hunt a bit in low light, but it’s fairly responsive in daylight with static subjects.

The Nikon S02, although it doesn’t publish the exact number of AF points, integrates face detection, which helped keep portraits and street candid shots reasonably sharp despite its simpler AF system. It only supports single AF rather than continuous or tracking, so fast-moving sports or wildlife subjects are mostly out of its league. It compensates with a macro focus range down to 5 cm, slightly better than Kodak’s 10 cm, giving it an edge for close-up shots.

For both cameras, manual focus is not an option, so relying on the autofocus system’s accuracy is essential. The Nikon’s face detection was a standout for casual portraits despite the system’s inherent limitations.

Lens Performance and Zoom Range: Understanding the Fixed Lens Systems

The Kodak M380 features a 38-190 mm equivalent (5x zoom) lens with aperture ranging from f/3.1 to f/5.6. Meanwhile, the Nikon S02 sports a more modest 30-90 mm equivalent lens (3x zoom) at f/3.3–5.9.

Those focal lengths illustrate a fundamental difference: Kodak favors a longer telephoto reach, beneficial for casual wildlife or event shots when you can’t move closer. The extra zoom extends your framing options but amps up the need for steady hands since neither camera offers optical image stabilization.

The Nikon’s shorter zoom range caters more to street, travel, and everyday shooting where wide angles matter more than long reach. Also, the S02 includes digital image stabilization, which helps smooth out small shakes but doesn’t replace optically stabilized lenses in my experience.

Sharpness across the zoom range in both cameras is average; expect softer edges and some chromatic aberrations, especially at telephoto extremes. Both have built-in macro capabilities, with Nikon’s slightly better due to closer focusing distance and stabilization.

Kodak M380 front Kodak M380 screen back Nikon S02 front Nikon S02 screen back

Real-World Image Samples: Comparing the Look and Feel

I tested both cameras under similar lighting conditions and subjects for this gallery. Here’s what stood out:

• Kodak M380 images are warmer in tone, with richer skin colors and more natural bokeh for portraits. The telephoto reach comes in handy but expect some softness.
• Nikon S02 shots are cooler and sharper with more detailed textures in daylight, but color accuracy varies more, sometimes feeling a bit washed out indoors.
• Low light images show more noise in Nikon files, even with digital stabilization engaged.
• Video-wise, the Nikon supports Full HD 1080p at 30fps and HD at 720p at 60fps, producing significantly better footage than the Kodak’s max VGA resolution (640x480) at 30fps.

Overall, if image quality and color rendition are your priorities for portraits and landscapes, Kodak edges out Nikon. But for casual snaps with decent video, Nikon’s specs give it a leg up.

How They Perform Across Photography Genres

Let’s break down where each camera fits best based on typical photography types.

Portraits: Skin Tones and Bokeh

• Kodak M380: The larger sensor and CCD tech produce warmer, pleasing skin tones. Bokeh is decent thanks to the longer lens reach. Face detection is lacking, so manual composition is key.
• Nikon S02: Face detection assists autofocus, but color reproduction can be flatter. Shallow depth of field effects are limited by lens aperture and zoom range.

Winner: Kodak for portraits.

Landscapes: Dynamic Range and Detail

• Kodak: Better dynamic range thanks to sensor size, but resolution is slightly lower.
• Nikon: Higher megapixel count yields more detail but struggles with dynamic range.

Both lack weather sealing, so caution in harsh outdoor conditions is advised.

Winner: Tie, leaning Kodak for color.

Wildlife: Autofocus Speed and Telephoto Zoom

• Kodak: Longer zoom to 190mm helpful, but no image stabilization and slower AF can frustrate.
• Nikon: Limited 90mm max zoom hamper wildlife shots; better stabilization but slower single AF.

Winner: Modest edge to Kodak for zoom.

Sports: Tracking and Burst Rate

Neither camera offers burst continuous shooting or advanced AF tracking. Frame rate and shutter speeds are limited.

Winner: Neither suitable; suggest entry-level mirrorless or DSLR.

Street Photography: Discretion and Portability

• Nikon: Smaller, lighter, touchscreen for quick focus; easier to slip in pockets.
• Kodak: Larger and heavier, but more ergonomic.

Both lack silent shutters or advanced low-light capabilities.

Winner: Nikon for portability.

Macro: Magnification and Focus Precision

Nikon’s 5cm macro distance is superior to Kodak's 10cm, and digital stabilizer aids handheld close-ups.

Winner: Nikon.

Night/Astro Photography: High ISO and Exposure Options

Neither camera excels here. Limited max ISO 1600, no manual exposure modes, and jittery long exposures cap night potential.

Winner: Neither suitable for serious astro.

Video Capabilities

• Kodak caps out at 640x480, making videos grainy and outdated.
• Nikon boasts 1080p Full HD and 720p 60fps for smoother motion videos.

Winner: Nikon hands-down.

Travel Photography: Versatility and Battery

• Kodak uses replaceable battery (KLIC-7003), easier for long trips with spares.
• Nikon has built-in battery rated for 210 shots - tight for multi-day trips.

M380’s longer zoom and big screen aid framing diverse scenes.

Winner: Kodak for battery and zoom versatility.

Professional Work: Files and Workflow

Neither handles RAW files, limiting post-processing creativity. Connectivity options are basic (USB 2.0 only), and no wireless features.

Winner: Neither ideal for professional use.

Reliability, Build Quality, and Battery Life

Both cameras are budget-friendly with plastic chassis and no weather sealing. This matches the ultracompact category but restricts rugged use.

Kodak’s removable battery is helpful when you want to carry spares; Nikon’s built-in battery is convenient but demands diligent charging habits.

Both rely on SD/SDHC cards (Kodak) or internal storage (Nikon’s specs less clear, likely internal-only), which affects flexibility.

Neither have wireless connectivity (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC), and no GPS tagging is supported - so forget about remotely controlling or geotagging without external gadgets.

Value for Money: Budget-Minded Verdict

At near-identical pricing ($160 for Kodak M380 and $177 for Nikon S02), choice boils down to:

• Kodak M380: Offers better zoom, bigger sensor for quality stills, physical controls, and replaceable battery - great for still photographers prioritizing image quality.
• Nikon S02: Smaller and lighter, touchscreen-enabled with superior video specs, better macro close focusing - suits casual shooters valuing portability and video.

Both models trail behind modern compacts and smartphones now, but for cheapskates or kit collectors, each has its niche.

Recommendations by User Type

If you fall into any of these camps, my picks would be:

• Casual Travel and Street Shooters: Nikon Coolpix S02, for its compactness and smoother video.
• Portrait and Landscape Hobbyists: Kodak M380, thanks to better sensor and zoom reach.
• Macro Enthusiasts on a Tight Budget: Nikon S02 takes this one.
• Video Content Creators on a Budget: Nikon S02, no contest.
• Wildlife or Sports Photography Beginners: Honestly, look beyond these models; neither can keep pace.

Wrapping It Up: Which Ultracompact Should You Choose?

My personal takeaway is that the Kodak EasyShare M380 is a surprisingly competent little shooter for stills, especially if you value image quality, zoom flexibility, and traditional button controls. It’s an ideal learn-the-ropes camera for beginners or a worthy backup for visual explorers who want a simple, forgiving tool.

On the flip side, the Nikon Coolpix S02 is more about extreme portability and punching above its weight in video capture. Your fingers might wrestle with its tiny touchscreen, but if you want a pocket machine for HD video snippets and casual snaps with modest macro ability, it fits quite well.

Both cameras are relics by today’s standards - so if budget permits, I’d generally suggest considering newer compacts or mirrorless cameras with RAW support, larger sensors, and better connectivity. However, for historical camera buffs, entry-level shooters, or those on a strict budget, either of these two can still charm in the right context.

Feel free to ask if you want a deeper dive on lens sharpness, sensor measurements, or even sample video clips - I’m happy to share more detailed insights from field testing. Thanks for reading my hands-on comparison of the Kodak M380 and Nikon S02 - happy shooting!