Kodak Z990 vs Nikon B500: Bridging the Gap in Small Sensor Superzooms

When it comes to compact superzoom cameras, the Kodak EasyShare Z990 and the Nikon Coolpix B500 often come up in conversation as budget-friendly bridges with serious zoom reach. Both deliver impressive focal lengths on small sensors, catering to enthusiasts who want versatility without breaking the bank or carrying heavy DSLR rigs. But which one truly stands out when you roll up your sleeves and start shooting? Having put both through extensive hands-on tests - field shooting, pixel peeping, and comparative analysis - I’ll walk you through all the key differences from sensor performance to ergonomics and real-world photography across genres. Let’s dive in.

Design and Handling: Size Isn’t Everything, But It Matters

Starting with feel and build, both cameras sport an SLR-like bridge design with fixed superzoom lenses. The Kodak Z990 is a bit chunkier at 124x91x105mm and weighs 445 grams, while the Nikon B500 trims down slightly to 114x78x95mm but packs on weight at 541 grams. That extra heft in the Nikon doesn’t translate to better grip ergonomics in my experience - the Kodak’s larger handgrip caters better to bigger hands and provides more secure hold during extended use.

Looking at their control layouts from the top view, both keep nostalgically simple interfaces without touchscreen features, but the Nikon deviates by ditching an electronic viewfinder altogether, relying solely on its tilting LCD. The Kodak, on the other hand, includes an electronic viewfinder, albeit a basic one with no resolution data provided. Personally, I find the Kodak’s EVF enhances shooting flexibility in bright conditions when the LCD can wash out.

By design standards, neither camera is weather sealed, so outdoor photographers should keep that in mind. Both rely on four AA batteries - handy for travel where recharging might be limited but a bit retro by today’s standards.

Sensor and Image Quality - Peeling Back the Layers

Both utilize 1/2.3” BSI CMOS sensors - the common small-sensor size in superzooms - which limits ultimate image quality and dynamic range. The Kodak Z990 offers 12 megapixels, while the Nikon B500 ups the ante slightly at 16 megapixels. Here’s the catch: higher megapixels on this size sensor often mean smaller pixels that can struggle in low light.

In terms of native ISO range, the Nikon tops out at ISO 3200, whereas Kodak pushes it to ISO 6400. However, real-world high-ISO noise performance on the Kodak was noticeably worse in my tests, with visible chroma noise creeping in even at ISO 800. The Nikon’s noise was more manageable and retained better detail overall up to ISO 1600.

Here’s a sensor size comparison to visualize the almost identical dimensions but differing pixel counts.

Both cameras support shooting in RAW format - a notable plus for enthusiasts throwing their shots into Lightroom or Photoshop for serious editing. However, Kodak’s files felt a bit softer at base ISO, potentially impacted by aggressive noise reduction, while Nikon’s images looked sharper straight out of camera with less smudging, which is a personal preference for preserving detail.

In practical terms: Nikon’s sensor may edge out Kodak’s for general image quality, especially if you prioritize resolution and better noise handling in shadows.

Display and Viewfinding - Seeing is Believing

Speaking of the LCD, Kodak’s fixed 3-inch display clocks in at just 460k dots, noticeably less crisp than Nikon’s brighter, tilting 3-inch screen with 921k dots. The difference is apparent when reviewing images in bright sunlight or navigating menus. The tilting design on the Nikon B500 also makes shooting at awkward angles or low ground macro shots easier without straining your neck.

Kodak includes an electronic viewfinder, though rudimentary, which gives some relief in harsh lighting situations, but its lower resolution limits precision framing. Nikon foregoes the EVF, forcing you to rely entirely on the rear screen.

Here’s a direct look at both back panels.

If you frequently shoot outdoors in bright conditions, I lean towards Nikon here. But if an EVF is a must-have for your style, Kodak fills that need better than nothing.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed - Catching the Moment

Now, how do these cameras perform when you’re chasing fleeting subjects?

Autofocus wise, the Nikon B500 boasts continuous AF and tracking autofocus, a significant plus over Kodak’s single AF mode without tracking capability. From my time testing wildlife and sports sequences, Nikon’s AF felt faster and more reliable, locking quickly and maintaining focus on moving subjects better than Kodak.

Continuous shooting rates also favor Nikon with 7.4 fps compared to Kodak’s 6 fps. While neither matches true high-speed DSLR action, these frame rates are respectable for their class and good enough for moderate sports or wildlife shooting where absolute speed isn’t critical.

Both cameras employ contrast-detection AF systems, which inherently lag behind dedicated phase-detection setups but Nikon’s improved algorithms offer a smoother live view experience.

Here’s a quick reminder of their burst capabilities and AF modes:

So if autofocus versatility and speed matter for your subjects, Nikon has the upper hand.

Lens and Zoom Capabilities - It’s All About Reach

Both cameras cater to superzoom enthusiasts, with Kodak boasting a 30x zoom at 28-840mm equivalent and Nikon pushing 40x zoom from 23-900mm equivalent.

Kodak’s lens aperture ranges from f/2.8 to f/5.6, while Nikon’s starts narrower at f/3.0 and drops to f/6.5 at long reach. What this means practically is Kodak’s lens lets in more light at wide angles - favoring indoor and lower-light shooting - but Nikon extends reach further, adding versatility for distant subjects.

Note Kodak’s lens offers a slightly wider 28mm equivalent start, good for landscapes and group shots. Nikon begins at 23mm, which is even wider, great for tight interiors and expansive scenes alike.

Macro focusing distances are similar at 1cm, making both capable of close-ups, though neither is a dedicated macro performer.

Image stabilization is optical and built-in on both cameras, essential to offset handshake during extreme zoom, and effectively smooths handheld shots if you don’t have a tripod.

Real-World Photography: How They Handle Different Genres

Moving beyond specs - how do these cameras perform across photography genres?

Portrait Photography

Portraits require pleasing bokeh and accurate skin tones. Neither camera offers large sensor bokeh, but Kodak’s slightly faster wide aperture (f/2.8) enables marginally shallower depth of field, offering softer backgrounds in close shots.

Both have face detection autofocus, but Nikon’s continuous AF gives it an advantage for slightly more assured focus on moving subjects. Skin tones out of the box are similar - both favor warm rendering with reasonable accuracy, but Nikon’s color processing handled subtle nuances slightly better in my side-by-side portraits.

Landscape Photography

Landscape shots benefit from wide dynamic range, high resolution, and weather resistance.

Neither camera is weather-sealed, so keep them dry for outdoor adventures. Nikon’s 16MP sensor offers a higher maximum resolution (4608x3456) than Kodak’s 12MP (4000x3000), delivering more detail for prints or cropping.

Dynamic range on these small sensors is limited; I didn’t notice significant differences in high-contrast scenes. The Nikon’s wider 23mm equivalent lens start favors grand vistas over Kodak’s 28mm.

Wildlife Photography

Wildlife photographers want fast AF, long reach, and burst shooting.

Nikon’s 40x zoom slightly surpasses Kodak’s 30x, but real-world reach feels close. AF tracking on Nikon is invaluable for moving animals, while Kodak’s single AF struggles.

Burst shooting is notably quicker on the Nikon, essential for catching fast action in the wild.

Sports Photography

Sports demands fast burst rates and accurate tracking in often challenging light.

Nikon wins again with 7.4 fps burst speed and continuous AF with tracking. Kodak’s 6 fps and single AF limit its effectiveness for sports beyond casual snapshots.

ISO performance also impacts low-light gym or stadium shots, where Nikon’s cleaner noise handling is advantageous.

Street Photography

For street shooters, portability and discretion matter.

Kodak’s slightly bigger size and EVF add bulk but enhance compositional flexibility. Nikon’s lighter build and lack of EVF make it more pocketable, but the non-articulating screen limits viewing angles.

Both cameras handle low light modestly; neither will replace a dedicated low-light performer, but Nikon’s lower base ISO (80) and cleaner shadows aid street photography at dawn or dusk.

Macro Photography

Both reach within 1cm for close focusing, sufficient for casual macro. Neither has focus stacking or post-focus features to extend depth of field creatively.

The Nikon’s tilting screen makes composing low-angle macro shots easier than Kodak’s fixed LCD.

Night and Astro Photography

Small sensors and limited manual modes restrict capabilities here.

Kodak offers ISO up to 6400 but with noisy results. Nikon caps at 3200 but with better image quality. Neither supports long bulb exposures or RAW stacking-friendly features, so dedicated astro enthusiasts will likely find these lacking.

Video Capabilities

Both record Full HD 1080p video, but with differences:

• Kodak: 1920x1080 at 30fps, using H.264, no microphone input.
• Nikon: 1920x1080 at 60i/50i/30p/25p, plus 720p options, MPEG-4 and H.264, no mic input.

Nikon supports higher framerates, useful for smoother motion or slow-motion effects. Neither has external mic jacks or 4K recording.

Image stabilization during video is optical on both, helping handheld shots, but built-in stabilization performance is typically average, requiring careful filming technique.

Travel Photography

Travelers seek versatility, battery life, and convenience.

Both use AA batteries - Kodak’s exact battery life unknown, Nikon rated for 600 shots, a plus for long wanderings without recharge.

Kodak’s wider maximum aperture and EVF appeal to photographers wanting flexibility in varied conditions. Nikon’s longer reach and lighter body favor packing light.

Professional Workflows

Neither camera targets professional pro use directly; no weather sealing or advanced connectivity.

Nikon edges forward with built-in wireless (Bluetooth) for quick image transfer, lacking on Kodak.

Kodak supports RAW format but Nikon does not, possibly limiting advanced editing workflows on the Nikon despite buffer advantages.

Connectivity and Storage: Modern Conveniences?

Nikon B500 offers built-in wireless connectivity and Bluetooth, facilitating quick social sharing or remote control via mobile apps - a modern feature absent in the Kodak Z990, which lacks all wireless options.

Both cameras support SD/SDHC cards, but Nikon extends support to SDXC, accommodating larger and faster cards if needed.

USB 2.0 and HDMI outputs are standard on both, enabling tethered downloads and external monitoring.

Price to Performance: Which Gives You More Bang for Your Buck?

At the time of their release and even now, both sit in the affordable sub-$300 range, aligning closely price-wise.

For that budget, the Nikon B500 delivers a more modern experience with better resolution, faster autofocus, video options, and connectivity.

Kodak Z990, though older, holds appeal for those who prioritize a built-in EVF, slightly brighter wide aperture, and arguably better ergonomics.

Summarizing Performance Scores at a Glance

Below is an overall consensus on how they stack up across the board based on my evaluations.

And drilling down into genre-specific strengths:

Sample Shots and Final Image Comparisons

Here are representative sample images illustrating both cameras’ color rendition, detail, and focal range.

Kodak Z990 front Kodak Z990 screen back Nikon B500 front Nikon B500 screen back

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

Having tested thousands of cameras, bridging specs with shooting experience brings clarity beyond static data sheets. Here’s my distilled advice:

• Choose Kodak EasyShare Z990 if:
  You want a sizable handgrip and comfortable ergonomics, an electronic viewfinder to compose in bright light, and a brighter wide-angle aperture for casual portraits or indoor shooting.

• Choose Nikon Coolpix B500 if:
  You prioritize a longer zoom reach, faster autofocus with tracking for wildlife or sports, higher-resolution images, better low-light noise control, video with higher frame rates, and modern wireless connectivity.

Neither is a perfect fit for professional work requiring weather sealing, ultra-high image quality, or advanced video features. But for enthusiasts on a budget seeking all-in-one bridge zooms, these remain viable options with distinct personalities.

Ultimately, if I had to recommend one for wider versatility and future-proof convenience, the Nikon B500 nudges ahead as the more complete package. But if you prize classic handling, an EVF, and a brighter lens at wide angles, the Kodak Z990 still has charm.

Hope this thorough comparison empowers your decision - happy shooting!

For deeper insights into superzoom camera testing methods and detailed hands-on reports of these models, stay tuned for my video review series linked above.