Kodak Z950 vs Ricoh PX

Kodak Z950 vs Ricoh PX: An Expert Comparison for Enthusiasts and Professionals

Over the years, small sensor compacts have evolved immensely, balancing convenience and image quality for everyday shooters and even some professionals on the go. Today, I’m putting two intriguing cameras head-to-head: the Kodak EasyShare Z950 and the Ricoh PX. Both hail from an era when compact cameras were the dominant choice for casual photography, yet each takes a unique approach to optics, build, and imaging capabilities. Having spent extensive hours testing and evaluating these models across multiple photography genres, my goal is to provide a detailed, trustworthy analysis so you can decide which suits your needs.

Let’s dive in.

First Impressions: Design, Size, and Handling

One of the first factors professionals and enthusiasts consider is ergonomics - how the camera feels and fits in the hand during extended shooting sessions.

The Kodak Z950 is appreciably chunkier and heavier than the Ricoh PX, measuring 110 x 67 x 36 mm and weighing 243 grams compared to the PX’s sleeker 100 x 55 x 21 mm and 156 grams. If you prize portability, the PX’s compact footprint makes it easier to slip into a pocket or bag without weighing you down during travel or street photography. The Z950’s larger body offers a more substantial grip - which is welcome for steady shooting, especially for users with bigger hands or those who prefer a dedicated hold over pocket-friendliness.

Handling-wise, both cameras are built primarily from plastic but reinforce structural integrity adequately. The PX ups the ante slightly with weather resistance (an environmental sealing rating), which the Z950 completely lacks. This protective advantage boosts the PX’s suitability for outdoor, landscape, and travel shooters who might expose their gear to less-than-ideal weather.

Layout and Control Experience

Turning the cameras over for a closer look at controls reveals their shared simplicity geared toward casual users, yet with notable differences.

Kodak Z950 offers basic manual controls, including shutter and aperture priority modes, exposure compensation, and manual exposure – features surprisingly sophisticated for a compact of this generation. Regrettably, the absence of advanced autofocus (AF) modes or face detection limits its responsiveness in dynamic shooting.

The Ricoh PX takes a more conservative approach, only allowing manual exposure mode without shutter or aperture priority. However, it compensates with face detection autofocus and an AF tracking mode, providing better chances of capturing moving subjects in focus. The PX also includes white balance bracketing - a refined touch that appeals to photographers wanting to experiment or adjust colors more precisely in challenging lighting.

Both cameras have a lack of touchscreens and built-in electronic viewfinders, relying solely on rear LCDs for composition.

Sensor and Image Quality: A Close Look at Fundamentals

Since image quality often defines a camera’s lasting value, it’s essential to analyze the sensors’ capability in depth.

Both models employ similarly sized 1/2.3” CCD sensors - an industry standard for compact cameras at the time. The Kodak Z950 houses a 12-megapixel sensor, delivering a maximum native ISO of 1600 (boostable to 3200), while the Ricoh PX ups resolution to 16 megapixels with a max ISO of 3200. The PX’s slightly larger sensor active area (28.07 mm² vs. 27.72 mm² in the Kodak) is negligible but suggests a marginal edge in light-gathering.

However, megapixels alone do not determine image quality. The CCD vs. CMOS debate is relevant here: both utilize CCD sensors, known for their color fidelity and noise performance at low ISO settings in that era but tend to lag behind CMOS in power efficiency and high ISO versatility.

In practical shooting, I found the Ricoh PX produces sharper results with more detailed textures - a credit to its higher resolution sensor and improved imaging engine (Ricoh’s Smooth Imaging Engine IV). The Kodak’s images occasionally showed softer edges and more aggressive noise reduction, especially beyond ISO 400. Color reproduction leans slightly warmer on the Kodak, which some portrait photographers might prefer, but the PX’s more neutral tones allow easier post-processing flexibility.

Neither camera supports RAW capture, a significant limitation for professionals wanting full control over file editing and non-destructive workflows.

Display and User Interface

On the rear, both models feature fixed LCD screens with identical resolutions of roughly 230k dots. The Kodak’s screen is marginally larger at 3 inches compared to the PX’s 2.7 inches, offering a slightly more comfortable playback and menu navigation experience. Yet, screen brightness and color accuracy feel comparable.

Neither incorporates touch functionality, which is a noticeable omission today but not uncommon at their release dates. Interface design is simple but functional - both providing quick access to common settings without unnecessary complications.

Autofocus and Shooting Responsiveness

When it comes to autofocus, the Ricoh PX clearly takes the lead. It employs contrast-detection AF with face detection and tracking abilities, albeit with a somewhat slow single shot continuous shooting rate of 1 fps.

The Kodak Z950 relies on contrast detection without any face or tracking AF, making it markedly less effective at locking focus on moving subjects or faces, especially in lower light environments.

For sports and wildlife photographers craving snappy AF response, neither camera is ideal by today’s standards; however, if you must choose between these two, the PX’s face detection and tracking may salvage shots in moderately active scenarios.

Lens Versatility and Optics

Compact cameras with fixed lenses generally have a disadvantage compared to interchangeable lens systems - but even there, focal length range and aperture matter.

The Kodak Z950 sports a 10x zoom lens, equivalent to 35-350 mm in 35mm terms, with a maximum aperture range from f/3.5 to f/4.8. This expanded telephoto reach is valuable for wildlife or sports enthusiasts needing longer reach without carrying additional lenses.

The Ricoh PX has a more modest 5x zoom equivalent from 28-140 mm at f/3.9 to f/5.4. While this shorter zoom range might disappoint some, the PX’s wider-angle coverage starting at 28 mm allows better framing flexibility for landscapes and architecture.

Both lenses incorporate optical image stabilization - Kodak’s approach is lens-based, while Ricoh uses sensor-shift stabilization. From my testing, the PX’s sensor-shift system marginally outperforms Kodak’s lens-based stabilization, especially noticeable in handheld macro and low-light shots.

Speaking of macro, the PX impresses with close focusing down to 3 cm, outperforming the Kodak’s 6 cm minimum focus distance. That makes the PX a better option for detailed flower, insect, or product photography enthusiasts.

Burst Shooting and Video Performance

Neither camera boasts blazing continuous shooting speeds. Kodak Z950 lacks continuous shooting modes, while Ricoh PX offers a very modest single frame per second burst - insufficient for demanding sports or wildlife action.

Video capabilities are parallel: both record HD video at 1280x720 pixels at 30 frames per second in Motion JPEG format. Neither includes microphones or headphone jacks for audio monitoring, and no 4K capability exists at all.

Therefore, if you prioritize high-quality video (particularly 4K or advanced codecs), neither is a standout. However, these models provide adequate video for casual use or simple family documentation.

Battery, Storage, and Connectivity Essentials

Both cameras use proprietary batteries (Kodak uses KLIC-7003, Ricoh DB-100), with no published official battery life estimates. Real-world experience shows moderate endurance suitable for typical day trips, but heavy shooters should carry spares, especially since both cameras lack USB charging.

Storage-wise, both accept SD/SDHC cards along with internal memory. However, for serious photography, I recommend investing in larger, faster SD cards to maximize shot volume and retrieval speed.

Connectivity is minimal; no Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or GPS support. Both include a USB 2.0 port and HDMI output for direct image transfer and playback on external displays.

Durability and Weather Sealing

The Ricoh PX’s environmental sealing stands out in this comparison. While not waterproof, it offers dust and splash resistance, including freezeproof feature, making it tougher and more reliable in less predictable scenarios.

The Kodak Z950 lacks any weather sealing or ruggedization, restricting its use primarily to controlled environments.

Real-World Performance Across Photography Genres

Now, let’s break down how each model performs in specific photography disciplines, integrating direct hands-on findings for practical insights:

Portrait Photography

Portrait shooters typically demand accurate skin tones, pleasing bokeh, and reliable eye detection AF.

• Kodak Z950 reproduces warm skin tones convincingly but lacks face or eye detection autofocus.
• Ricoh PX includes face detection autofocus, improving focus accuracy on subjects’ faces; however, its smaller aperture limits bokeh quality compared to larger sensor cameras.
• Neither supports RAW, limiting post-processing flexibility on skin colors.

Overall, the PX is preferable for casual portraits where automated focus helps, but pros should look elsewhere for refined bokeh and control.

Landscape Photography

Key requirements: wide dynamic range, sharpness, resolution, and weatherproofing.

• Ricoh PX’s 16MP sensor offers more megapixels for cropping and printing large landscapes.
• PX’s weather sealing provides confidence shooting in conditions like rain or dust.
• Kodak’s 35mm equivalent wide-end is narrower (35mm vs 28mm PX), offering less expansive framing.
• Dynamic range is limited on both cameras due to sensor size and aging CCD tech.

The PX edges out for landscape use thanks to wider lens coverage and durability.

Wildlife Photography

Requirements: long telephotos, fast AF, burst shooting.

• Kodak Z950 boasts a longer 350mm reach, valuable for distant subjects.
• Unfortunately, its AF performance is slow, with no continuous AF or burst shooting.
• Ricoh PX’s 140mm max focal length is less ideal for wildlife, though AF tracking may produce more keepers on moderate movement.

Therefore, for wildlife, telephoto reach on Kodak is tempting but should be paired with substantial patience; the PX delivers better focus reliability but sacrifices reach.

Sports Photography

Similarly to wildlife:

• Both cameras lack necessary burst rates and AF tracking for pro sports.
• PX’s face detection and AF tracking arguably make it better suited for casual sports.

Neither is recommended for serious sports shooters.

Street Photography

Here, discretion, portability, and low-light performance count.

• PX is lighter and more compact - big advantage for spontaneity.
• Both cameras struggle in low light due to sensor limitations; PX has a max ISO of 3200 but with noticeable noise, while Kodak’s max ISO 1600 yields softer images.

Ricoh PX wins for street photography thanks to size and subtlety.

Macro Photography

• PX’s impressive 3 cm macro focusing distance beats Kodak’s 6 cm, enabling closer shots.
• Sensor-shift stabilization on PX improves handheld macro sharpness.

PX is better for macro enthusiasts.

Night and Astro Photography

High ISO performance and manual exposure are vital.

• Both offer manual exposure modes.
• CCD sensors tend to show noise at ISO above 400-800.
• Neither camera is specifically optimized for astrophotography.

Neither excels here, but PX’s higher max ISO provides marginally better options.

Video Capabilities

Both share HD 720p video at 30fps with Motion JPEG compression, inadequate by current standards but adequate for simple clips.

Neither supports advanced video features or external audio control - a downside for serious videographers.

Travel Photography

Travel demands versatility, weather resistance, battery longevity, and compactness.

• Ricoh PX wins here with environmental sealing, lighter size, and wider-angle lens.
• Kodak Z950’s greater zoom range is appealing but weighed down by size and lack of protection.

PX provides a more reliable companion for travel.

Professional Use

Neither supports RAW or advanced workflows, limiting appeal for pro photographers seeking post-processing flexibility.

Build quality and durability favor PX, but overall, professionals should consider updated mirrorless or DSLR systems.

Overall Performance and Ratings Summary

Judging by performance metrics synthesized from practical testing:

Genre-Specific Scores

• Portrait: PX > Z950
• Landscape: PX > Z950
• Wildlife: Z950 > PX (due to zoom)
• Sports: PX > Z950 (due to AF tracking)
• Street: PX > Z950 (size, AF)
• Macro: PX > Z950
• Night/Astro: PX > Z950 (ISO range)
• Video: Tie
• Travel: PX > Z950
• Professional: Neither recommended

Sample Images and Real-World Output

Kodak Z950 front Kodak Z950 screen back Ricoh PX front Ricoh PX screen back

The included image gallery demonstrates both cameras’ output in various scenes. Notice how PX delivers crisper details and more accurate colors under mixed lighting, while Kodak occasionally softens highlights and shadows.

Final Verdict: Which Camera Should You Choose?

These cameras target casual photographers seeking compact options without interchangeable lenses, but they cater to different priorities.

Choose Kodak Z950 if:

• You need a longer zoom range (up to 350mm) for occasional wildlife or sports shots.
• You prefer a larger, more substantial grip.
• Budget constraints favor the lower price.

Why Kodak Z950 falls short:

• Lack of face detection and AF tracking results in more missed shots.
• No weather sealing limits outdoor use.
• Older sensor tech leads to softer images at higher ISO.

Choose Ricoh PX if:

• You want better overall image quality with higher resolution.
• Need a weather-sealed camera for outdoor adventures.
• Prioritize compactness and portability - ideal for travel and street.
• Want better autofocus with face detection and tracking.
• Require superior macro capabilities.

Why Ricoh PX may not suit everyone:

• Limited telephoto range restricts wildlife and sports reach.
• More expensive than Z950.
• Limited control over exposure modes and continuous burst.

Honorable Mentions and Alternatives

If you find both cameras lacking in critical areas such as video quality, low light, or professional functionality, consider modern mirrorless or advanced compact cameras from Sony, Fujifilm, or Canon. These brands push sensor and AF technologies far ahead, although often at a higher price and complexity.

In conclusion, I found the Ricoh PX to be the more balanced and versatile camera, especially for photographers valuing portability, durability, and better autofocus. The Kodak Z950 still holds niche appeal for those needing extended zoom ranges without breaking the bank but at a cost to speed and image precision.

Both cameras, while dated by current technological standards, offer solid performance for specific casual shooting scenarios. Understanding their strengths and compromises allows you to match the right tool to your photography goals.

From intimate portraits to winding landscapes and even the occasional macro detail, these compacts remind us that thoughtful design and smart features - not just sensor size - drive photographic satisfaction.

Happy shooting!