Kodak M380 vs Nikon Coolpix S3700: An Expert Comparison for Enthusiasts and Professionals

Selecting a compact camera in today’s smartphone-heavy market calls for a close examination beyond marketing bullet points. While both Kodak’s M380 and Nikon’s Coolpix S3700 position themselves as lightweight, pocket-friendly companions, they hail from different points in digital imaging evolution, with each offering distinct strengths and compromises. Having extensively tested thousands of cameras over the past 15 years, I bring you an unapologetically detailed side-by-side comparison to help you situate these two ultracompacts in real-world photography contexts.

Let’s dive into how these cameras truly stack up - from technical underpinnings to nuanced user experience - focusing on practical implications for a range of photography disciplines and scenarios.

Size and Ergonomics: Handling the Compact Challenge

Both cameras adhere to the ultracompact category, emphasizing portability and straightforward use over bulk or extensive controls.

Kodak’s M380 measures 100x60x20 mm and weighs 155 grams, while Nikon’s S3700 is slightly smaller and lighter at 96x58x20 mm and 118 grams. The dimensions are close enough that pocketability is a given, but the S3700’s marginally reduced footprint does favor discreet street shooting or travel scenarios where every gram counts.

In hand, the M380’s slightly heftier frame lends a subtle feeling of solidity and reassurance, which can be helpful in steadying shots, especially during longer lens focal lengths. The Nikon’s slimmer design is more minimalistic but feels a bit less anchored when shooting handheld for extended periods.

Considering ergonomics, both lack traditional viewfinders - no surprises there - but the M380 edges out in button layout simplicity, making it easier for absolute beginners to navigate. The S3700 sacrifices a bit of control intuitiveness for its reduced size. If you’re accustomed to tactile button placement, the Kodak’s slightly broader body offers a less cramped grip.

Top Controls and Interface: How They Feel to Shoot

The top plate reveals telling differences. Kodak M380 sports a modest zoom rocker switch, shutter button, and basic mode/menu access, sticking to a no-frills approach. Nikon S3700’s controls are similarly spartan, given the segment focus on straightforward point-and-shoot use.

Neither camera provides advanced exposure modes or custom controls; shutter and aperture priority options are non-existent, so manual exposure enthusiasts will find these models rather limiting.

The lack of touchscreen on both middling smaller displays (M380’s 3.0-inch vs Nikon’s 2.7-inch) means focusing and navigating menus rely exclusively on physical controls - a dated approach, but consistent with their age.

Sensors, Resolution, and Image Quality: Pixel Hunt

This is where the differences grow more meaningful.

• Kodak M380: 1/2.3" CCD sensor, 10-megapixel resolution (3648×2736 max), ISO 80–1600, no RAW support
• Nikon S3700: 1/2.3" CCD sensor, 20-megapixel resolution (5152×3864 max), ISO 80–3200, no RAW support

Both cameras use CCD sensors, which historically produce vibrant colour but lag in high ISO noise performance compared to modern CMOS. No RAW means editing latitude is limited; you’ll largely rely on JPEG output.

At face value, Nikon’s S3700 doubles the resolution, offering more detail and cropping flexibility. Practically, I found the S3700’s sensor captures finer landscape textures and architectural details when shooting raw file alternatives are unavailable. Kodak’s 10MP standard is decent for casual prints and web use but falls short for larger output.

ISO range differences also matter. The S3700’s extended top ISO 3200 is tempting for low-light environments, though noise becomes pronounced at these settings, just as I’d expect from any compact with a small sensor.

Dynamic range and colour fidelity in both cameras are modest. Expect limited shadow recovery and highlight roll-off, which reflects the budget CCD lineage and absence of image processing advances found in newer cameras.

In sum: Nikon’s sensor resolution and boosted ISO range give it an edge for those chasing sharpness and somewhat better low-light usability without raw capability.

Display and User Interface: Viewing the World Through Each Screen

Both cameras deploy fixed, non-touch 230k-dot LCD panels, standard fare for their release periods. The Kodak boasts a slightly larger 3-inch screen vs Nikon’s 2.7-inch.

In practical shooting, the M380’s screen size felt more comfortable for framing and composing, especially under direct sunlight, where glare impacted both models similarly. Neither offers brightness adjustment or anti-reflective coatings, so external shading or viewfinders would have helped here - but they don't exist on these ultracompacts.

Menu systems are rudimentary, with Kodak’s interface being more text-based and Nikon leaning on icons. Neither supports touchscreen focus selection, so moving the AF area is not an option, clutching you to central autofocus with some selective touch.

The lack of an articulated or tilting screen means awkward positioning for selfies or low-angle shots. This limitation, while common in ultracompacts, hinders creative flexibility.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance: The Eye of the Compact

Kodak’s M380 uses contrast-detection autofocus among 25 focus points but no face or eye detection. Nikon’s S3700 also relies on contrast-detection but supplements this with face detection and AF tracking, which lowers missed focus chances on moving subjects.

In field tests, the Kodak struggled with accuracy under low contrast or dim lighting; focus hunts were common, and locking on subjects moving at moderate speed was unreliable. Nikon’s face detection and AF tracking offered a more confident experience when shooting people or pets, though continuous autofocus is absent, limiting sports or wildlife use.

Neither camera supports manual focus or advanced AF modes, reflecting their entry-level target. Burst shooting modes are not supported, which curtails capturing action.

Lens Capabilities and Optical Performance: Zooming Realities

• Kodak M380: 38-190mm equivalent (5x optical zoom), aperture F3.1–5.6
• Nikon S3700: 25-200mm equivalent (8x optical zoom), aperture F3.7–6.6

The Nikon’s extended 8x zoom starts wider at 25mm, giving more flexibility for landscapes and group shots, while Kodak’s 38mm focal start is already a mild telephoto, crawling away from wide-angle coverage.

At the telephoto end, both lens systems show softness and chromatic aberration typical of compact zooms, but Nikon’s newer optics deliver marginally better corner sharpness and less barrel distortion.

Aperture differences favor Kodak slightly at wide end (f/3.1 vs Nikon’s f/3.7), promising marginally better low-light capture and depth of field control, though the gains are limited by sensor constraints.

The Nikon’s macro focus distance at 2 cm surpasses Kodak’s 10 cm, enabling closer close-ups that appeal to macro enthusiasts fond of flower or product photography.

Flash and Low-Light Capabilities: Seeing in Shadows

Both cameras include built-in flashes with similar ranges - Kodak’s 2.5 m, Nikon’s 2.8 m. The Kodak provides explicit flash modes like Red-Eye reduction, which Nikon lacks, though in-camera red-eye correction somewhat mitigates this.

Kodak does not feature image stabilization, making handheld low-light shots prone to blur, especially at telephoto reach or slow shutter speeds. Nikon’s optical image stabilization notably improves sharpness and stability in dim lighting, a tangible advantage.

ISO sensitivity differences also compound Nikon’s low-light edge. Our comparative testing in indoor ambient light confirmed Nikon’s sensor and stabilization combination yield noticeably cleaner images with less camera shake blur.

Video Recording Capabilities: For Moving Moments

Both cameras record video exclusively in Motion JPEG format, an older compression method creating large files with limited editing flexibility.

• Kodak M380: 640×480 resolution at 30 fps
• Nikon S3700: 1280×720 (HD) at 30 fps

Nikon’s HD video makes it a straightforward choice for casual video work, delivering clearer footage suitable for social sharing without upsizing.

Neither supports external microphones or headphone monitoring; audio quality and control are basic. Video stabilization is absent in Kodak and unspecified in Nikon, though the latter’s optical stabilization likely helps with handheld video smoothness.

Battery Life and Storage: Keep Shooting Longer

Battery life is critical in the field.

• Kodak M380 uses model KLIC-7003, but real-world shots per charge are unspecified.
• Nikon S3700 runs on EN-EL19 with an advertised 240 shot capacity.

From experience with comparable models, Kodak’s battery life is modest, requiring swaps or charging after light outings.

Nikon’s quoted 240 shots, while not stunning, better supports day trips without emergency chargers.

Both use SD/SDHC cards, with Nikon extending support to SDXC for higher capacity. Neither offers dual card slots or fast UHS write speeds.

Connectivity: Moving Files Your Way

Connectivity is where Nikon’s S3700 decisively overtakes.

• Kodak M380 has no wireless features; transfer is USB 2.0 only.
• Nikon S3700 includes built-in wireless (Wi-Fi) with NFC support.

Wireless image transfer simplifies sharing social snaps directly to smartphones or cloud services, particularly valuable on the go.

Kodak’s lack of wireless means tethering cables for downloads - a dated and frustrating prospect in 2024.

Build Quality and Environmental Resistance: The Road Warrior Test

Both cameras lack any form of weather sealing, dustproofing, or ruggedization - again typical for this category but noteworthy if you intend to shoot outdoors frequently.

Neither is waterproof or shock/freeze/crush-proof, so treat both as delicate and avoid extreme conditions.

Weight and dimensions suggest compactness over durability; choose accordingly if robustness is a priority.

Putting It All Together: Performance Scores & Practical Impact

To synthesize the technical data and field testing:

Specialized Photography Disciplines: Who Shines Where?

Portrait Photography

• Kodak’s lack of face or eye detection hampers portraiture reliability.
• Nikon’s face detection and wider zoom range (including surprise-wide 25mm focal for environmental portraits) make it more suitable for capturing expressive shots.
• Neither offers strong bokeh control due to small-sensor depth-of-field limitations.

Landscape Photography

• Nikon’s higher resolution and broader angle coverage enhance landscapes.
• Kodak’s 10MP limits large print potential.
• Both lack weather sealing, so carry rain covers if needed.

Wildlife Photography

• Neither sports speedy continuous AF or burst shooting.
• Nikon’s autofocus tracking is a minor plus but not sufficient for fast action.
• Telephoto reach is modest for serious wildlife.

Sports Photography

• Absence of burst mode or advanced AF severely limits usability.
• Nikon’s improved focus tracking still falls short for fast-moving subjects.

Street Photography

• Nikon’s smaller size and wireless abilities edge the M380.
• Both are quiet and compact but without viewfinders.
• Image stabilization in Nikon aids handheld low-light city scenes.

Macro Photography

• Nikon’s 2 cm macro focus dwarfs Kodak’s 10 cm minimum, offering finer close-ups.
• Neither possesses focus stacking or bracketing capabilities.

Night and Astro Photography

• Small-sensor CCDs and no manual exposure make astrophotography impractical.
• Nikon’s higher ISO ceiling and stabilization help with night scenes.

Video Use

• Nikon’s HD video outclasses Kodak’s VGA resolution.
• Both are limited by lack of external audio interfaces and stabilization.

Travel Photography

• Nikon’s lighter body, extensive zoom range, and wireless ease make it travel-friendly.
• Kodak’s slightly larger screen is helpful for framing.
• Battery life favors Nikon for longer outings.

Professional Use

• Neither camera supports RAW or manual exposure, limiting professional workflows.
• Nikon’s wireless capabilities and higher resolution lend slight advantage in casual pro use cases (quick-documentation scenarios).
• Both excel as second-party casual cameras, never professional primary tools.

Real-Life Image Samples: Judging the Output

Kodak M380 front Kodak M380 screen back Nikon S3700 front Nikon S3700 screen back

Examining side-by-side JPEG images from each camera under identical conditions confirms Nikon’s advantage in detail, dynamic range, and colour saturation fidelity.

Kodak’s images feel flatter, softer, and less vibrant, though still acceptable for social or snapshot contexts.

My Take: Who Should Buy Which - and Why?

If you value absolute simplicity, a slightly larger screen, and a durable-feeling grip, and you’re snapping casual memories with minimal fuss, Kodak’s M380 might serve you without adding complexity.

However, for a considerably more versatile experience, with higher resolution images, better autofocus performance, optical image stabilization, improved video quality, wireless connectivity, and longer battery life, the Nikon S3700 is the superior pick.

Photographers who want to shoot landscapes, portraits, and the occasional macro or street scene will outgrow Kodak quickly. Nikon’s longer zoom and sharper images bring more creative options, while its wireless features and portability are well-suited to modern digital lifestyles.

Final Thoughts: The Evolution of Ultraportables

Kodak’s M380 reflects earlier ultracompact design trends, prioritizing ease-of-use and affordability over flexibility and performance. In contrast, Nikon’s later-release S3700 improved on this formula by integrating more advanced electronics, connectivity, and imaging improvements - albeit still within a basic fixed-lens camera.

Neither camera can rival today’s mirrorless contenders or flagship compacts but serve as affordable, simple point-and-shoot options for certain user niches.

Thanks for joining me for this deep dive into two intriguing ultracompact cameras. I hope these insights help you navigate your photography journey - sometimes the best camera is the one you have in your pocket, but choosing wisely still matters.

Happy shooting!

Appendix: Key Specifications at a Glance

[Note: Image credits to test setups and manufacturer resources]