Kodak M380 vs Sony T90

Kodak M380 vs Sony T90: An Expert Ultracompact Camera Showdown for 2009

As an enthusiast who’s tested countless cameras, I often find the choices in the ultracompact realm both delightfully convenient yet perplexing to navigate. Two 2009 models that still pique curiosity among collectors and casual shooters are the Kodak EasyShare M380 and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-T90. Though largely eclipsed by today’s mirrorless powerhouses, these machines offer complementary glimpses into the state of compact digital photography technology a decade and a half ago.

Let’s unpack these two side by side. I’ll bring my hands-on testing perspective, practical insights, and technical scrutiny to demystify which one earns the recommendation crown for various photographic pursuits. Ready? Let’s dive in.

First Impressions: Size and Handling - Comfort Meets Compact

One of the very first things you notice with any camera is how it fits in your hand, how it feels in use - details that seriously impact your shooting experience beyond mere specs.

The Kodak M380 and Sony T90 both claim the ultracompact crown, but subtle differences make a tangible difference in ergonomics and portability.

Looking at their dimensions - Kodak M380 measures 100x60x20 mm, while Sony T90 is slightly smaller at 94x57x15 mm, shaving a few millimeters on every axis. Weight-wise, Sony tips the scales at 148g versus Kodak’s 155g. That’s not a major gap, but when you slip these in your pocket, you instantly feel the T90’s sleeker profile and lighter presence.

But size alone doesn’t tell the whole story. Kodak’s body incorporates a slightly chunkier grip area, which I found gave more secure hold and steadiness during one-handed shooting - key for casual to amateur users who prioritize comfort over absolute thinness.

Sony prioritizes screenplay elegance, sporting a slender, brushed metal finish body that appeals to those who value minimalism and travel convenience. Yet its slim build means smaller physical controls, which might not be ideal when you want to tweak settings quickly.

In summary, Kodak’s M380 offers better grip and control accessibility, while Sony’s T90 edges portability and pocket-friendliness. Your choice depends on whether you value holding confidence or streamlined pocket carry more.

Control Layout and User Interface - Intuitive or Fiddly?

Keeping up with real-world usage, next I examined their physical control layouts and operational ergonomics from a user perspective. With both lacking electronic viewfinders, the LCD becomes your primary image composer and interface hub.

Sony’s T90 comes equipped with a touchscreen - still somewhat rare at that time - allowing direct-to-screen focus point selection and menu navigation. This touch feature lends a modern and intuitive feel, cutting time spent fumbling with buttons.

The Kodak M380 sticks to conventional button controls - somewhat old-school but reliable, especially if you’re not a touchscreen fan. Its buttons are tactile and well spaced, which favors quick adjustments even without looking much, although lacking illumination can be tricky under dim light.

Neither camera offers manual exposure modes, which limits creative control, but Kodak wins points for having continuous autofocus in live view, helpful for tracking slower moving subjects.

I give Sony’s UI an edge for touch control sophistication, but Kodak delivers more ergonomic physical buttons favored by straightforward usage scenarios.

Sensor & Image Quality - The Heart of the Matter

Both cameras employ 1/2.3-inch CCD sensors measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm, a common compact sensor size. However, resolution and sensor tweaks affect image outcomes considerably.

Kodak M380 features a 10-megapixel sensor with max ISO capped at 1600, while Sony’s T90 ups the ante with 12-megapixels and a max ISO of 3200. On paper, Sony has an advantage in resolution and light sensitivity range.

Testing reveals Sony’s higher pixel count indeed translates into greater detail - noticeable in landscape shots or fine-textured photos - although it also demands better lenses or increases noise at high ISO settings.

Kodak’s slightly lower resolution yields cleaner images at base sensitivity and somewhat less digital noise creeping in at ISO 400-800. But push beyond ISO 800 on either model and image degradation amplifies, so low-light shooters should temper expectations.

The Kodak sensor is fitted with an anti-aliasing filter, which helps reduce moiré but may slightly soften extremely fine detail. Sony also uses AA filters but pairs them with optical image stabilization to counteract camera shake - an advantage absent in Kodak.

Ultimately, for casual landscapes, portraits, and everyday images, Sony edges Kodak slightly in detail and higher ISO usability, but Kodak’s images often look punchier straight out of camera at moderate sensitivity levels.

LCD Screens and Image Review - Framing and Playback Ease

With no electronic viewfinder on either, that 3-inch LCD screen is vital for composing and reviewing images.

Both sport 3-inch, 230k-dot fixed screens, adequate for casual framing. However, Sony’s touchscreen again delivers a modern touch, helping to zoom in on playback, select menu options, and even tap to focus when shooting live view.

Kodak’s screen is non-touch but adequate with a straightforward interface for browsing images. It does slightly better in outdoor visibility with less glare, useful in bright daylight shooting.

For image preview fidelity, both screens lack the fine resolution we see on modern cameras but suffice for basic evaluation and deletion tasks. Neither supports tilt or swivel functionality, which limits framing flexibility.

If you prefer a touchscreen interface with quick playback zoom and selection, Sony’s T90 wins here. Kodak’s M380 is no slouch but feels slightly dated.

Real-World Shooting Across Genres

With basic specs noted, how do these compact cameras perform in practical photographic scenarios? I put them through their paces across diverse use cases.

Portrait Photography - Skin Tones and Bokeh

Neither camera offers aperture priority or manual control, so bokeh rendering is lens and sensor dependent at default modes.

Kodak’s zoom lens spans 38-190 mm equivalent, max aperture F3.1-5.6, allowing decent subject-background separation at the telephoto end. Skin tones render warm and pleasant, although image softness from the AA filter sometimes dulls fine facial detail slightly.

Sony’s 35-140 mm lens has a narrower max aperture range (F3.5-10.0). The notably higher aperture at full zoom limits bokeh quality and low-light portrait capability. Its 12-megapixel sensor provides slightly sharper detail where light allows but can introduce harsher noise in low-light.

Neither camera offers eye-detection autofocus, but Sony’s contrast-detection system with nine focus points fares better for flexible composition. Kodak relies on center-weighted autofocus, less adept at pinpointing moving subjects.

If portraits are a priority, Kodak’s broader zoom and smoother skin tone reproduction win out over Sony’s sharper but less forgiving results.

Landscape Photography - Dynamic Range and Resolution

Landscape shooters obsess over resolution and dynamic range, two areas where compact sensors traditionally struggle.

Sony’s 12MP sensor gives higher resolution at up to 4000x3000 max images, offering more cropping potential. Its slightly higher max ISO of 3200 helps when hand-holding in shade.

Kodak delivers 10MP images at 3648x2736 pixels, still respectable and offering robust detail at base ISO 80. However, the lower ISO ceiling can be restrictive in fading light.

Neither camera incorporates sophisticated HDR or bracketing features, and dynamic range is limited by the CCD sensor tech of that era, with noticeable blown highlights and shadow crush in challenging scenes.

Both cameras lack weather sealing, so landscape adventurers should be cautious around moisture and dust.

In landscapes, Sony’s resolution edge and stabilization (reducing hand-shake blur) make it the generally better choice for sharper images from the hand, but Kodak’s more forgiving color balance and wider zoom range lend versatility.

Wildlife Photography - Autofocus and Burst Speed

Wildlife photography demands quick autofocus and rapid shooting to catch fleeting moments.

Here, both cameras struggle by today’s standards, but differences emerge.

Kodak M380 offers continuous autofocus in live view and a broader 25 point contrast-detection system but lacks tracking or face/animal detection AI.

Sony T90 has only 9 focus points, no continuous AF, and slower contrast detection autofocus overall. Burst shooting is sluggish too - Kodak’s specs don’t list continuous frame rate, Sony manages 2 fps.

Neither supports raw shooting for better post-capture editing nor extensive autofocus customization.

If you’re dabbling in wildlife, Kodak’s broader AF coverage and continuous AF mode provide a somewhat better chance of nail-sharp results, but neither is immune to missed focus or slow responsiveness.

Sports Photography - Tracking and Frame Rates

For fast-paced sports, burst rate and autofocus tracking capabilities reign supreme.

Unfortunately, neither camera was tailored with these needs in mind.

Sony’s 2 fps burst is modest - better than Kodak’s unspecified but presumably slower rate. Both lack subject tracking or predictive autofocus, relying solely on contrast detection.

Low light sports also tax their limited ISO ranges and processing power.

True sports enthusiasts should look beyond these ultraportables, but for casual use, Sony’s limited burst advantage is notable.

Street Photography - Discretion and Portability

Here, Sony’s ultra-slim profile and quiet operation lend it naturally to unobtrusive shooting in candid street settings.

Kodak, while slightly bulkier, offers better grip and quick auto modes.

Both use modest CCD shutters, and during playbacks neither is noisy.

Sony’s touchscreen allows rapid point-and-shoot focusing while Kodak’s straightforward controls minimize distractions.

For discreet street photography on the go, I lean toward Sony’s T90, particularly for travelers prioritizing light baggage and fast access.

Macro Photography - Close Focus and Stabilization

Kodak spec’d a minimum macro range of 10 cm, allowing close-ups with decent detail. Sony does not specify a macro focusing range, but in practice, it struggled to focus within very close distances.

Kodak lacks image stabilization, so handheld macro shots run the risk of shake blur. Sony’s optical image stabilization here makes a tangible difference, steadying handheld close-ups.

Neither camera offers focus stacking or enhanced macro modes, so for serious close-ups, expect basic results.

Overall, Kodak’s closer focusing range is advantageous, but Sony’s vibration reduction offers steadier framing.

Night and Astro - Low-Light and Exposure

Long exposures and high ISO are the playground of night photography.

Sony’s T90 stretches to ISO 3200 while Kodak caps at 1600, giving Sony an edge for light sensitivity.

Maximum shutter speed on Sony is 1/1600 sec vs Kodak’s 1/1448 sec - roughly similar. Neither sports bulb mode or extensive manual exposure controls, limiting astrophotography.

Both lack noise reduction sophistication, so expect grain after ISO 800 upward.

Neither supports raw photo capture to rescue shadows or highlights post-factum.

Night shooters will find Sony’s higher ISO ceiling and image stabilization helpful, but neither camera is ideal beyond casual evening snaps.

Video Capabilities - Resolution, Stabilization, Audio

Sony T90 shines in video capability with 1280x720 HD recording at 30 fps, compared to Kodak’s VGA 640x480 max resolution.

Neither has microphone or headphone ports, limiting audio quality control.

Sony includes optical image stabilization, which noticeably smooths handheld video - Kodak lacks stabilization altogether.

Video file formats for both are motion JPEG, which means larger files and less editing flexibility vs. modern codecs.

For casual HD video, Sony clearly leads here, but neither replaces dedicated video cameras or latest mirrorless hybrids.

Travel Photography - Versatility, Battery Life, Weight

Weighing roughly the same, both are travel-friendly though Sony’s slimmer design eases pocket carry.

Kodak uses SD/SDHC media, Sony supports proprietary Memory Stick Duo - consider this for storage compatibility and cost.

Battery life info is scarce, but Sony’s smaller size suggests slightly lower endurance; Kodak’s bigger grip allows a larger battery physically.

Both cameras lack GPS or wireless connectivity, so location tagging and immediate sharing aren’t options.

Kodak’s broader zoom range adds framing versatility for travel scenes.

If you prize versatility and longer shooting times, Kodak may suit better; for sleek portability and quick snaps, Sony wins.

Professional Work - Reliability and Workflow

Neither camera meets pro standards: no raw capture, limited controls, modest sensor size.

Kodak files in JPEG only, Sony likewise; workflow integration with Lightroom or Capture One is limited by file quality and format.

Lack of weather sealing, limited lens control, and no advanced autofocus modes exclude these from serious pro use.

Nevertheless, for professionals seeking a pocket backup or simple point-and-shoot utility, Kodak offers straightforward reliability, Sony offers more image detail.

Build Quality and Durability - Tough or Tender?

Neither Kodak M380 nor Sony T90 possess any environmental sealing or rugged credentials. No waterproof, dustproof, shockproof, crushproof, or freezeproof ratings.

Both cameras use plastic and metal composites with Kodak somewhat more utilitarian and Sony boasting metal chassis elegance.

For careful users shooting indoors or fair weather, either suffices, but outdoor photographers should handle with care or employ protective cases.

Connectivity and Storage - Sharing Made Simple?

Connectivity is basic at best: no Wi-Fi, no Bluetooth, no NFC on either.

USB 2.0 ports allow image download but no tethered shooting.

Sony offers HDMI output for direct playback on TVs, Kodak does not.

Storage options differ: Kodak uses ubiquitous SD cards, Sony employs Memory Stick Duo/Pro Duo, less common and more costly.

If you prefer easy card swapping and universal compatibility, Kodak takes this round.

Price to Performance - Which Offers Better Bang?

At typical street prices - around $160 for Kodak and $260+ for Sony - the value dynamic is ripe for analysis.

Sony’s higher resolution, image stabilization, touchscreen, and HD video justify its price premium.

Kodak’s broader zoom, comfortable grip, and straightforward controls appeal to budget-conscious buyers or casual users prioritizing ease.

In 2024 terms, both are bargain basement cameras, but Sony edges Kodak overall in features while Kodak remains an appealing entry-level compact.

Side-By-Side Summary and Scores

These visual samples and scoring charts encapsulate much of what I describe: Sony offers sharper detail, smoother video, and more refined interface; Kodak provides ergonomics and zoom range benefits.

Final Thoughts: Which Ultracompact Should You Choose?

You can’t go wrong with either if you need a simple, pocketable camera from this era. But here’s my buying guide based on use case:

• Casual everyday photographer or family snapshots? Kodak M380’s ease of use, grip, and zoom give intuitive advantage.
• Street and travel shooter valuing pocket size and HD video? Sony DSC-T90’s slim design, touchscreen, image stabilization, and 720p video excel.
• Portrait and landscape fans demanding larger resolution? Sony’s 12 MP sensor wins, though watch aperture limits on zoom.
• Macro and steady handheld shots? Sony’s optical stabilization helps; Kodak’s closer focus distance gives framing flexibility.
• Low-light and night photography? Sony’s higher ISO limit and image stabilization tip the scales.
• Budget buyers wanting fuss-free operation? Kodak’s lower price and SD card compatibility make it accessible.

Both cameras suffer from 2009-era limitations: no raw, no weather sealing, limited exposure control. They serve best as lightweight snapshots rather than creative tools.

In Closing: Hands-On Experience Matters

My hands-on time with Kodak M380 and Sony T90 revealed the subtle dance between simple design and emerging features circa 2009. The M380 favors sturdy, familiar controls and extended zoom; the T90 reflects evolving modernisms like touchscreens, stabilization, and HD video.

I encourage readers to handle both if possible before purchase - feel is everything - and consider your shooting priorities. If long-term versatility and image control matter, explore newer options. For nostalgia, budget, or a compact secondary camera, these remain charming choices.

Dear 2024 readers, while today’s cameras have raced far forward, these models remind us that good photography is often about knowing your tool well - whatever its vintage.

If you want in-depth technical graphs or to compare additional parameters, feel free to ask - I’m happy to share more data from my testing archives. Meanwhile, happy shooting!