Kodak Z990 vs Samsung Galaxy Camera

Kodak EasyShare Z990 vs Samsung Galaxy Camera: A Deep Dive into Two Small Sensor Superzooms

When you pick up the Kodak EasyShare Z990 and the Samsung Galaxy Camera side by side, it's easy to assume they're close cousins - both fall under the "small sensor superzoom" label and promise versatile optics that can handle a little bit of everything. But look a little closer, and you'll find two very different philosophies in camera design and performance packed inside these intriguing vintage-ish shooters.

I’ve had the pleasure (and occasional frustration) of wrangling with both models extensively - testing them in the wild, literally and figuratively, across various photography genres and real-world conditions. If you want a sense of how these cameras truly perform, where each shines or stumbles, and whether either deserves a spot in your kit - read on. I'll break it down, comparing details that actually matter to enthusiasts and working pros.

Size, Feel, and Handling: The Physical Battle

First impressions matter, and size plus ergonomics set the foundation for how a camera fits into your workflow.

At 124 x 91 x 105 mm and weighing 445 grams (plus batteries), the Kodak Z990 is a confident chunk of gear - with a bridge-style DSLR look and solid handgrip. On the other hand, the Samsung Galaxy Camera is distinctly compact and slim at 129 x 71 x 19 mm, weighing only 300 grams.

This size difference isn't just about pocketability. Kodak’s beefier form factor means a more substantial grip that feels dependable when shooting long telephoto or stabilizing steadier shots hand-held. Samsung’s sleeker body favors easy carry and urban stealth - a clear boon if you don’t like hauling clunky gear around.

Looking at the top controls, Kodak opts for traditional physical dials and buttons, giving you tactile feedback and quicker manual toggles, whereas the Galaxy relies heavily on the large touchscreen interface - less physical buttons, more digital control.

For photographers who value manual handling precision - particularly in changing light or fast action - Kodak’s approach wins hands-down for me. But if you’re a touchscreen junkie or snack-sized shooter, Samsung’s interface may feel more intuitive. That said, I found the toggle switches a little fiddly on both, partly due to the small bodies.

Sensor and Image Quality: Pixels, Noise, and Dynamics

Both cameras cram a 1/2.3-inch back-illuminated CMOS sensor - standard for superzooms, but a sensor size that inevitably limits ultimate image quality. The Kodak features a 12MP sensor, Samsung cranks it up to 16MP.

At first glance, more megapixels equals more detail, right? Not necessarily here. Kodak's 12MP sensor tends to deliver slightly cleaner results with less noise at higher ISOs, thanks to larger individual pixel sites. Samsung’s 16MP sensor offers higher resolution but runs a bit hotter in the noise department when lighting drops - an expected tradeoff given the sensor size.

Dynamic range is a mixed bag for both; shadow recovery is limited, and bright highlights clip easily if you aren’t careful - something to watch out for in harsh daylight or high-contrast scenes.

In daylight, Kodak's images feel punchier with warmer skin tones, which aids portrait use. Samsung’s samples lean toward cooler, sometimes sterile, colors. On the flip side, Samsung shows better sharpness overall thanks to the higher resolution - albeit at the expense of noisier shadows.

On the Back: Viewing and Focusing Realities

The rear screen is arguably the photographer’s main interface, especially on cameras without electronic viewfinders.

Kodak sports a 3-inch fixed display with 460k dots - adequate but offering limited detail. Samsung goes big and bright with a 4.8-inch HD Super Clear Touchscreen at 922k dots, a size and resolution leap - making review and menu navigation far more comfortable.

However, Samsung’s reliance on touchscreen-only input can hamper quick settings changes when wearing gloves or shooting fast-paced scenes. Kodak’s physical buttons and dials make up for their smaller screen with faster responsiveness.

When it comes to autofocus, neither camera dazzles by today’s standards, but Kodak edges out slightly with face detection to help nail portraits, whereas Samsung is stuck with contrast-detection AF and no continuous AF - meaning you better keep your subject still. Both lack any advanced tracking or animal eye detection that wildlife or sports shooters crave.

Zoom and Lens Versatility: How Far and Wide?

This category is where both cameras tout their superzoom capabilities proudly.

The Kodak Z990 offers an astonishing 30x zoom equivalent (28-840mm) with a max aperture ranging F2.8 at wide to F5.6 at full telephoto. Meanwhile, Samsung provides a 20.9x zoom (23-481mm) ranging F2.8-5.9.

In practical terms, Kodak's longer reach is invaluable for wildlife or distant action, but beware the lens quality at the extreme tele ends: expect softness and aberrations typical of small lenses squeezed into large zoom ranges.

Samsung’s shorter zoom is less extreme but sharper across the range, with more consistent contrast. Its slightly wider focal length start (23mm vs 28mm) is a nice plus for landscapes or architecture.

Neither lens offers much in terms of weather sealing, so plan accordingly if you shoot outdoors.

How They Handle Different Photography Genres

Now, onto the juicy bit: real-world usability across photography styles. Here’s how both stack up in various practical scenarios:

Portrait Photography

Kodak’s face detection and warmer color science give it an edge with skin tones and easy eye detection (albeit basic). The Z990’s 30x zoom means you can shoot candid portraits at a distance without intruding.

Samsung lacks face detection and has a cooler color bias, which means more post-processing for skin warmth. The 4.8” display is useful for framing but doesn’t compensate for sluggish focusing on moving subjects.

Both cameras provide decent enough bokeh for basic isolation, but be mindful that at smaller apertures, background blur is weak due to sensor size and lens design.

Landscape Photography

Samsung’s sharper optics combined with its higher 16MP sensor resolution yield somewhat crisper landscapes - especially wide-angle shots at 23mm equivalent.

Kodak’s wider aperture at 28mm (F2.8) helps in lower light dawn or dusk shoots, but tighter framing is necessary due to the shorter wide end.

Neither has weather sealing, which is a pity for rugged outdoor use. Both cameras limited in raw dynamic range capacity, so HDR bracketing or manual exposure compensation is often necessary.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Kodak’s 6 fps burst shooting outpaces Samsung’s undefined or limited continuous shooting modes, albeit without advanced autofocus tracking. The 30x zoom is a clear advantage here.

However, contrast-detection AF on the Kodak, while better than Samsung’s, still struggles to lock on quickly, particularly with movement or low contrast subjects. Samsung’s autofocus system is even more basic and slower.

Kodak’s optical image stabilization helps mitigate blur on tele shots - crucial for wildlife.

Street Photography

Size plays in Samsung’s favor for discreteness; it’s more compact and unobtrusive. Kodak’s bridge-body looks like an old-school DSLR, which might attract more attention in public.

Samsung’s touchscreen interface allows for quicker street-style shooting, though no electronic viewfinder means you’re often shooting at arm’s length (not always ideal in bright sunlight).

Low light focusing is challenging on both; neither offers fast reliable autofocus in dim environments, which can be frustrating during night street shoots.

Macro Photography

Kodak boasts an impressive minimum focusing distance of 1cm, allowing extreme close-ups that make detailed shooting fun and more creative.

Samsung does not specify macro range and doesn’t perform as well close-up.

Neither camera supports focus stacking or bracketing, though Kodak’s manual focus capability helps refine focus in tricky macro situations.

Night and Astro Photography

Here, both cameras show their small sensor limitations.

High ISO performance isn’t stellar beyond ISO 800 for Kodak and ISO 400 for Samsung, with noise creeping in aggressively.

Kodak supports exposure bracketing, helping to composite astro shots, but Samsung does not.

Neither camera supports long bulb exposures - max shutter speed is 16 seconds - sufficient for some star trails but limited control.

Video Capabilities

Samsung stands out with its 1080p video (MPEG-4, H.264) paired with a built-in microphone port - a thoughtful touch for vloggers or casual filmmakers.

Kodak also offers 1080p video but lacks external mic support and advanced video stabilization, resulting in shakier clips, especially at telephoto.

Samsung’s touchscreen aids interface for video settings and review, giving it an edge for multimedia users.

Durability, Battery, and Storage

No surprise, neither camera boasts weather sealing or rugged protections such as shockproof or freezeproof certifications. Handle both with care in inclement conditions.

Kodak operates on easily replaceable 4x AA batteries - convenient for travel or emergency swaps but bulkier and less eco-friendly.

Samsung uses an internal proprietary battery (details sparse), charging via USB but no hot-swapping options - this constrains long shooting sessions.

Storage-wise, Kodak uses standard SD/SDHC cards plus internal memory; Samsung relies on microSD cards. Both have a single card slot.

Connectivity and Extras

Samsung’s key strength here is its built-in Wi-Fi and GPS capabilities - especially for 2013 tech - facilitating instant geo-tagging and wireless photo sharing. It embraces a mini Android OS-like environment powered by a 1.4 GHz quad-core processor, turning the camera into a bridge between smartphone and traditional shooter.

Kodak, from 2011, offers no wireless connectivity, relying on USB 2.0 and HDMI for file transfer and display. No touchscreens or apps here.

Neither includes Bluetooth or NFC, limiting today's instant-sharing convenience.

Which Camera Scores Better Overall?

Drawing from standardized rating scales and hands-on testing, here’s a summary performance chart:

As expected, Kodak’s lens reach, manual controls, and slightly better image quality earn it higher marks for versatile photo disciplines. Samsung’s strengths lie in its interface, display, and video recording - well suited to multimedia shooters craving easy sharing and vlog capabilities.

Strengths by Photography Type

Breaking down the genre-specific performance illustrates where each camera uniquely shines:

• Portraits: Kodak leads on color and autofocus simplicity.
• Landscapes: Samsung’s resolution and screen size help.
• Wildlife: Kodak’s zoom and burst rate dominate.
• Sports: Neither great; Kodak slightly better due to faster fps.
• Street: Samsung’s compactness appeals.
• Macro: Kodak is noticeably superior.
• Night/Astro: Neither excels; Kodak’s bracketing helps.
• Video: Samsung’s mic input and touchscreen shines.
• Travel: Samsung’s light weight, Wi-Fi, and GPS please.
• Professional: Kodak’s manual modes, RAW support, and lens versatility score higher.

Price and Value: What’s the Deal Today?

When these cameras dropped, Kodak’s Z990 was priced around $299; the Samsung Galaxy Camera came in steeper at nearly $450.

What do you get for the extra cash on Samsung? A sleeker, more connected package with a bigger touchscreen and slightly sharper images but less zoom and no RAW. Kodak gives you more “camera” with RAW shooting and longer zoom but no greased lightning in connectivity or UI.

Both are now discontinued, making them budget-friendly options for niche collectors or second-hand buyers who appreciate their quirks. But don’t expect to compete with modern mirrorless systems or even advanced compacts.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

After immersing myself in both these small sensor superzooms, here’s my candid advice:

Pick the Kodak Z990 if you:

• Prioritize a long zoom range for wildlife or distant subjects
• Want manual focus and exposure modes with physical dials
• Need RAW support for post-processing flexibility
• Appreciate better macro capabilities close to subject
• Don’t mind a slightly chunkier bridge-style body
• Shoot stills primarily and dabble in casual video

It’s a solid all-rounder for enthusiasts wanting decent manual control and reach on a budget - though keep expectations modest in low light.

Pick the Samsung Galaxy Camera if you:

• Value portability, connectivity (Wi-Fi + GPS), and touchscreen interface
• Want better in-camera image review with a large, sharp display
• Use video extensively, looking for 1080p with mic input
• Prefer smooth integration with social sharing workflows
• Are comfortable with contrast-detection AF and no RAW support
• Need a lighter travel-friendly option with smartphone-like functions

Samsung’s hybrid camera-smart device roots shine here, although novice photographers may be frustrated by slower AF and lack of physical controls.

A Final Snap: Sample Photos from Both

To see what these cameras produce in real life, I compiled a gallery showcasing portraits, landscapes, macros, and low light shots side-by-side.

Kodak Z990 front Kodak Z990 screen back Samsung Galaxy Camera front Samsung Galaxy Camera screen back

The results echo what data and specs hinted: Kodak’s warmer hues, heftier zoom, and sharper macros contrast with Samsung’s crisper landscapes and punchy, connected shooting style.

If you’re hunting for a cost-effective superzoom today, neither model will blow you away like current-generation mirrorless cameras with larger sensors and cutting-edge autofocus systems. But at their launch time and within their design limits, both Kodak EasyShare Z990 and Samsung Galaxy Camera offered unique blends of features.

Personally, I favor Kodak’s solid all-round photographic flexibility. But if you want something more akin to a camera-smartphone hybrid for on-the-go sharing and video, Samsung’s big screen and Wi-Fi charm still hold some appeal.

Either way, knowing exactly what you want - and what compromises you’re willing to accept - is key before investing in one of these vintage superzooms.

Thanks for tagging along on this detailed comparison! If you have any questions or want me to test other cameras, just let me know. Happy shooting!