Kodak EasyShare M381 vs Samsung TL205: A Hands-On Ultracompact Camera Comparison

When diving into the ultracompact camera market from the late 2000s and early 2010s, there’s something intriguing about two contemporaries: the Kodak EasyShare M381 and the Samsung TL205 (also known as the PL100 in some regions). Both cater to casual shooters wanting a pocketable companion, yet each brings subtle nuances to the table that can tip the scales, depending on your photographic style and priorities.

Having personally tested and compared over a thousand cameras - including numerous ultracompact models - I’m excited to break down these two, not just by specs but by real-world use, aiming to illuminate their strengths and where they might fall short. Let’s dig in.

The Feel Factor: Size, Weight, and Ergonomics

Ultracompacts are all about fitting seamlessly into your everyday life. Both the Kodak M381 and Samsung TL205 keep it simple with fixed lenses and minimal controls, but their dimensions and handling differ ever so slightly.

Physically, Kodak M381 measures 101 x 60 x 20 mm and weighs just 153 grams. The Samsung TL205 comes in just a bit smaller at 99 x 59 x 20 mm but weighs a hair heavier at 177 grams, likely due to internal build density.

Neither camera offers a dedicated grip or pronounced buttons - expected in this class - but the Kodak’s slightly larger footprint affords a modestly better hold, especially for users with larger hands. The Samsung's compactness lends to easier pocket carry, but I found the TL205’s body a bit slicker, which calls for more mindful handling.

Both designs favor simplicity over complexity, but neither excels ergonomically for extended use. You won't get configurable dials or textured grips. In a pinch, though - for vacation snaps or quick urban shooting - they're unobtrusive companions.

Looking at their top panels side-by-side, the Kodak features a straightforward shutter release and zoom rocker, no frills, no extra buttons cluttering the deck. Samsung packs similar controls but interestingly adds a “double” and “motion” self-timer mode, touching on some fun creative options missing on the Kodak.

Sensor Tech and Image Quality: Identical Sensors, Different Results?

At the heart of both cameras lies a 1/2.3-inch CCD sensor with 12-megapixel resolution - 6.08 x 4.56 mm in size, equating to around 27.72 mm² sensor area - fairly standard for the ultracompact category in that era.

While specs on paper are neck and neck, the nuances in image processing and ISO sensitivity ranges influence the outcome.

• Kodak’s ISO range: 64 to 1600 native, no boosted ISO.
• Samsung’s ISO range: 80 to 3200 native, no mention of boosted ISO.

Both include an anti-aliasing filter, which softens the image slightly to combat moiré but reduces perceived sharpness.

Real-world testing showed that the Samsung TL205 handles higher ISO slightly better, thanks in part to having a native ISO max of 3200 versus Kodak’s 1600, albeit with both cameras producing notable noise above ISO 400–800. This makes low-light shooting somewhat constrained for both but with a modest edge to Samsung.

Color reproduction on the Kodak tends toward warmer tones, which, for portraiture, often results in more flattering skin renditions. The Samsung opts for a cooler, slightly more neutral profile, aimed at fidelity but sometimes at the cost of lifelessness.

Dynamic range is tight on both models, with blown highlights common in contrasty scenes and shadow detail skating thin. Landscape shooters will want to bracket or shoot in softer lighting conditions to coax the most out of them.

Viewing and Composition: Screens and Viewfinders

Neither camera houses an electronic viewfinder - an omission typical for ultracompat point-and-shoots of this generation.

Both rely exclusively on their rear LCD for framing and reviewing.

• Kodak M381 sports a 3-inch fixed type screen with 230k-dot resolution.
• Samsung TL205 offers a slightly smaller 2.7-inch, also 230k-dot fixed screen.

In practice, the Kodak’s larger screen provides a nicer viewing experience, especially outdoors. The brightness max is middling on both but the Kodak exhibits a bit less reflective glare.

Neither has touchscreen capabilities or articulated screens, so you’ll get basic menus and playback functions without swiping or tap gestures. Live view autofocus is available on both but slow and sometimes frustrating, a hallmark of early CCD compacts where contrast detection hunt rears its head often.

Autofocus Systems: Snappiness or Slowpoke?

Both rely on contrast-detection AF without phase detection.

Kodak’s M381 offers single and multi-area autofocus, but no continuous, tracking, or face detection.

Samsung TL205, on the other hand, boasts basic AF tracking - albeit primitive by modern standards - and has a center-weighted AF point option. Both cameras lack face or eye detection, meaning accuracy depends heavily on composition and light.

In bright daylight, both cameras snag focus quickly enough. Indoors or dimmer scenes? Expect hunting. In action or wildlife shots, neither is quick enough for reliable capture - something to emphasize if you’re reaching for them in sports or wildlife contexts.

Lens Specifications: Zoom Range and Max Aperture

Kodak M381 houses a 35-175 mm (equivalent) 5x zoom lens with maximal apertures f/3.0 to f/4.8.

Samsung TL205 sports a slightly shorter zoom range 35-105 mm (3x zoom) with apertures f/3.0 to f/5.6.

So, Kodak offers more telephoto reach, a potentially decisive factor for casual photographers needing that extra zoom bite - for family snaps or candid long-distance shots.

However, the Samsung’s wider maximum aperture at the telephoto end is narrower (f/5.6 vs f4.8 on Kodak), meaning it lets less light in when zoomed fully, which impacts low-light or indoor performance negatively.

In practice, both lenses suffer from typical compact lens issues - soft corners at wider focal lengths, and some barrel distortion on the wide end and pincushion at telephoto. The Kodak’s 5x zoom is a bit more versatile for framing distant subjects, but it does come with slightly more optical compromises apparent in sample images.

Real-World Image Samples: Color, Sharpness, and Noise

Let’s take a look at actual photographs captured side by side under identical conditions.

Kodak M381 front Kodak M381 screen back Samsung TL205 front Samsung TL205 screen back

Portrait shots reveal Kodak’s images bearing warmer skin tones and nuanced color transitions, while Samsung’s clarity is respectable, albeit cooler-toned. Noise is visible on both at ISO 400+ but Samsung’s handling past 800 iso is marginally smoother.

Landscape photos emphasize Kodak’s longer zoom for cropping more tightly on distant subjects, though Samsung’s improved dynamic range retention around shadows yields better detail in shaded parts.

In low light, both cameras edge toward mush and softness, with Kodak holding onto color better, and Samsung producing grainer but somewhat more detailed images.

For macro, Kodak and Samsung tie nicely, both offering 10 cm minimum focus distances with decent close-up detail and bokeh creamy enough for casual portraits.

Burst Shooting and Video: Modest by Modern Standards

Neither camera offers continuous burst or continuous autofocus modes.

Video capabilities differentiate a bit -

• Kodak M381 maxes out at 640 x 480 at 30 fps.
• Samsung TL205 offers 1280 x 720 HD at 30 or 15 fps, along with lower resolutions.

If video is part of your purchase decision, Samsung’s HD video clearly outclasses Kodak’s VGA output. Both save video in Motion JPEG format, which bloats file size, and neither supports microphone input or advanced video features like stabilization or slow motion.

Neither model uses in-body image stabilization, so handheld shooting at long zooms or in low light demands careful technique or a tripod.

Battery, Storage, and Connectivity

Kodak M381 runs on a rechargeable KLIC-7003 lithium-ion battery. Samsung TL205’s battery specifics are unspecified, but it uses its own proprietary battery pack common among Samsung compacts.

Regarding storage, Kodak takes SD/SDHC cards and uses internal memory as fallback; Samsung is more flexible, accepting MicroSD/MicroSDHC and SD/SDHC cards and internal memory as well.

Connectivity options for both cameras remain slim with no Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, or GPS. Kodak sticks to USB 2.0; Samsung adds HDMI output, useful for direct playback on HD TVs.

Build Quality and Environmental Protection

Neither camera offers environmental sealing, waterproofing, dustproofing, shockproofing, or freezeproofing. Their plastic builds feel adequate but reveal their budget roots under closer inspection.

If you’re a serious outdoor photographer who demands weather resistance, neither camera is suitable.

Overall Performance and Genre-Specific Use

Looking at performance holistically and by photographic discipline:

• Portrait Photography: Kodak takes the lead with warmer, more flattering skin tones, enhanced by longer zoom. Samsung delivers on clarity but cooler colors might need post-processing tweaks.
• Landscape: Both systems are limited by sensor dynamic range but Samsung’s somewhat better shadow detail and lens color fidelity are assets.
• Wildlife: Kodak’s longer zoom is handy but poor AF speed limits action potential. Neither camera can confidently track fast-moving subjects.
• Sports: Neither is suited for sports due to slow AF and lack of continuous burst modes.
• Street Photography: Compact size and discreet design favor both, with Samsung’s smaller footprint slightly advantaging urban portability.
• Macro: Both capable, with 10 cm macro focus and decent close-up sharpness.
• Night/Astro Photography: Limited by sensor noise and lack of manual controls, but Kodak’s ISO 1600 cap is sufficient for casual night shots; Samsung’s higher ISO capability is offset by amplified noise.
• Video: Samsung’s 720p HD video capability with HDMI output outpaces Kodak’s VGA, beneficial for casual videography.
• Travel: Both cater well to travel with slim profiles and versatile zoom (Kodak more so with 5x zoom). Battery life is modest but not exceptional across the board.
• Professional Work: Neither camera is appropriate for professional demands - no RAW support, limited manual control, and modest image quality.

Price and Value

At launch pricing, Kodak M381 was around $170, Samsung TL205 slightly higher at $180.

Given their overlapping feature sets, Samsung arguably offers slightly better value with its HD video and broader storage card support, while Kodak appeals with superior reach and better portrait hues.

If shopping today, expect to find either in used markets for under $100, but note their dated sensor technology and lack of advanced features compared with modern budget mirrorless or compact cameras.

Final Recommendations: Who Should Buy Which?

If you want an ultracompact for casual snapshots, primarily portraits or travel with occasional landscape, Kodak M381 edges forward for its 5x zoom and warmer image profile. Its bigger screen also enhances everyday usability.

If HD video capability, marginally better low light ISO, and a smaller footprint for everyday carry matter more, Samsung TL205 is your pick. The addition of HDMI is a nice touch for direct playback, and varied self-timer modes introduce playful options missing on Kodak.

For any serious wildlife, sports, or professional photography ambitions, neither camera will suffice. Their slow autofocus, limited dynamic range, and dated sensor tech constrain them to casual use.

To wrap up, both cameras serve as nostalgic glimpses into a time when ultracompacts aimed to combine ease of use with modest zoom flexibility. When selecting between Kodak M381 and Samsung TL205, base your choice on which features and handling quirks resonate most with how, where, and what you shoot.

Happy shooting, and remember - even older gear can surprise with the right eye and a bit of creative patience.

If you enjoyed this deep-dive, consider checking out my video hands-on demo and sample gallery where I put these exact cameras through their paces in diverse real-world shooting conditions.