Kodak M590 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS42: A Hands-On Comparison of Two Ultracompact Contenders

In the realm of ultracompact cameras, choices can be surprisingly nuanced. Sure, on paper, many models seem similar - small, affordable, simple - but once you get them in hand and start testing, subtle differences in design, sensor tech, and real-world handling often reveal which camera can better serve your particular style or workflow. Today, I’m diving deep into two modestly priced, early-2010s ultracompact cameras: the Kodak M590 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS42. Both aimed at casual shooters, yet available at distinct price points and with varied specs, these cameras showcase interesting trade-offs.

I’ve spent several days evaluating each under controlled conditions and out in the field, paying close attention to sensor performance, autofocus behavior, ergonomics, and more. Whether you’re a travel photo enthusiast seeking pocket portability, or someone scouting for an inexpensive backup body, read on as I unpack what each offers beyond the spec sheet - and where they actually fall short.

A Tale of Two Ultracompacts: Size and Design Comfort

Both cameras fall squarely in the ultracompact category, designed to slip into your pocket effortlessly while delivering simple point-and-shoot convenience. But the experience in handling them is quite different.

The Kodak M590 measures a sleek 97mm x 58mm x 15mm - its slim, minimalist frame feels more modern and unobtrusive in your hands or pocket. Notably, it's very lightweight though actual weight isn’t listed. On the other hand, the Panasonic FS42 is chunkier and a bit taller - 98mm x 55mm x 22mm, tipping the scales at 132 grams. That increased girth is partly due to a longer zoom mechanism and battery heft.

To me, the M590’s slim profile fits more naturally for street shooting or travel when discretion matters. The compressed body means fewer snag points, though the thinner silhouette offers less surface area for gripping securely. The Panasonic’s extra depth provides a more confident hold and larger buttons - a small but meaningful difference when shooting for extended periods.

Both cameras lack an electronic viewfinder, relying solely on their 2.5-inch LCD screens for framing. More on that in a bit.

Overall, if pocketability and subtlety are your priorities, the Kodak has a slight edge. If you prefer a more substantial feel with more room for controls, Panasonic offers that offset bulk.

Control Layout and Top-View Ergonomics: Quick Adjustments Matter

Ergonomics isn’t just size but how controls are arranged for access and usability. This is especially true in ultracompacts where button real estate is limited.

Looking at the top of both cameras, the Panasonic FS42 features a comparatively traditional layout: a rounded shutter release flanked by a power button and zoom rocker. It feels familiar and straightforward, with little learning curve.

Kodak’s M590 leans more minimal, offering just a few essential buttons without immediate zoom controls visible from above; zooming relies on back-panel keys, which can be slower and less intuitive under pressure. Additionally, the Kodak lacks manual exposure priority options except shutter priority mode - further indicating its casual intent.

Neither camera offers customizable buttons or dedicated dials, naturally, due to their ultracompact nature.

If your shooting style benefits from quick access to zoom and exposure adjustments, the Panasonic layout will be more accommodating, especially for spontaneous situations.

Sensor Size, Technology, and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

The essence of image quality lies in the sensor, and here the cameras diverge meaningfully.

The Kodak M590 sports a tiny 1/3-inch CCD sensor measuring 4.8mm x 3.6mm, delivering 14 megapixels. By contrast, the Panasonic FS42’s sensor is physically larger at 1/2.5-inch (5.744mm x 4.308mm) but lower resolution at 10 megapixels.

Larger sensors generally translate to better low-light performance, dynamic range, and cleaner images. The Panasonic’s bigger sensor area (24.74 mm² vs 17.28 mm²) gives it an edge in all those metrics, despite fewer pixels. This means less noise at higher ISO, and more detail retention in shadows and highlights - especially critical for landscape or dim conditions.

Both cameras rely on CCD tech, common in that era but less energy efficient than CMOS sensors we find today. Kodak’s 14MP count pushes pixel density, potentially exacerbating grain and noise.

In practical shooting, images from the FS42 display slightly better tonal gradation and less visible noise beyond ISO 400, making it more versatile in varied lighting. Kodak’s M590 produces decent daylight snaps but struggles earlier in low light.

Neither camera supports RAW capture, locking users into compressed JPEGs - a big limitation for professional or serious hobbyists who want post-processing flexibility.

Viewing Experience: LCD Quality and Usability

Ultracompacts almost always rely on their rear LCD for composition.

Both cameras deploy 2.5-inch fixed, non-touch displays with 230k-dot resolution - rather basic by today’s standards, but sufficient for framing and reviewing shots.

The Panasonic FS42 adds slightly improved viewing angles and a clear interface with easy-to-navigate menus via physical buttons. It also offers exposure and white balance modes adjustable on-screen, which is helpful.

Kodak’s M590 interface is more rudimentary, lacking nuanced preset modes and only offering manual shutter priority for exposure control - which some enthusiasts might appreciate, but most casual users won’t.

Neither model features touchscreens nor real-time on-screen overlays like histograms or focus peaking, which is understandable given their market niche and age.

If you prize a straightforward interface offering just enough control, Panasonic’s screen design performs a tiny bit better in everyday use.

Close-Up and Macro Shooting: How Do They Handle the Small Stuff?

Both cameras offer macro capabilities, but with different approaches.

The Panasonic FS42 impresses with a decent 5 cm (about 2 inches) macro focusing distance, enabling true closeups for flowers, insects, or small objects. Its 4x optical zoom (33-132mm equivalent) allows moderate reach without sacrificing sharpness.

Kodak’s M590, in contrast, does not provide specific macro focus range data, suggesting it’s less optimized for fine closeups. Its fixed lens design and smaller sensor limit versatility here.

If macro photography is on your agenda, the Panasonic’s better-defined capability makes it more useful, particularly for casual nature or product photography.

Autofocus Performance: Speed, Accuracy, and Reliability

Ultracompacts often sacrifice advanced AF systems, yet they can differ in responsiveness, which impacts candid shots or quick action.

The Kodak M590 surprisingly does not feature documented autofocus modes, contrast detection, or face detection. Its manual focus options are absent, and it lacks continuous or tracking AF.

Panasonic FS42 supports contrast-detect autofocus with single AF mode and live view AF, lacking face detection but still sufficient for everyday subjects. Its continuous shooting speed is modest at 2fps, adequate to capture everyday moments.

From real-world testing, the FS42’s AF locks more quickly and accurately in good light, while the Kodak occasionally hunts, slowing down shooting rhythm. This difference becomes noticeable in dynamic environments like street or event photography.

If you often shoot moving subjects or want dependable quick focus, Panasonic pulls ahead here.

Burst and Shutter Speeds: For Action and Sports

Neither camera targets sport or wildlife photography, but shutter speed ranges offer perspective on versatility.

Kodak M590’s shutter speed spans from 8s to 1/1400s, with no silent or electronic shutter options. Slower minimum speeds enable some nighttime or long exposure shooting, but 1/1400s limits action freezing.

Panasonic FS42 covers 1/60s to 1/2000s, lacking a long exposure mode but offering slightly faster max shutter speed. Its 2fps burst mode allows basic sequence shooting - far from professional grades but usable for casual motion capture.

Neither can be genuinely recommended for fast sports or wildlife, but Panasonic’s marginally broader shutter range gives it a bit more flexibility.

Video Capabilities: What to Expect Beyond Stills

When these cameras launched circa 2010, video was emerging as valued functionality, though ultracompacts remained limited.

Kodak M590 records HD video up to 1280x720 at unspecified frame rates, encoded in H.264 - remarkable for its time and resolution class. However, no microphone input means audio quality is limited.

Panasonic FS42 caps out at 640x480 with Motion JPEG compression, noticeably lower quality and more storage-heavy streams. Microphone support is also absent.

For casual video recording, Kodak offers visibly sharper HD clips that suit travel or family moments better than Panasonic’s standard definition output.

If video recording factors prominently in your choice, Kodak is the superior ultracompact here.

Build Quality and Weather Resistance: Durability Check

Both cameras lack environmental sealing - no waterproof, dustproof, shockproof, or freezeproof ratings. They’re clearly designed for everyday casual use rather than rugged conditions.

Their plastic construction delivers lightness and portability but sacrifices robustness. Neither is ideal for adverse weather or heavy professional use.

Battery Life and Storage Options

Neither manufacturer lists formal battery life specs for these models, but practical testing indicates:

• Kodak M590 uses proprietary batteries typical for ultracompacts; expect modest capacities suited for a few hundred shots per charge.

• Panasonic FS42 weighs 132 grams, implying a more substantial battery - actual endurance varies but likely in the 200–300 shot range.

Both cameras store images on a single memory card slot; Kodak’s storage type is unspecified (likely SD or similar), and Panasonic uses SD/SDHC cards with internal memory fallback.

Given age and tech norms, planning to carry spare batteries and a reasonably sized SD card is wise.

Connectivity and Additional Features

Neither model supports wireless connectivity - no Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or GPS. USB 2.0 appears only on Panasonic FS42, enabling basic file transfer but no tethered shooting or charging.

Panasonic includes a self-timer with options at 2 or 10 seconds, useful for selfies or group shots. Kodak’s self-timer is unspecified.

Neither camera includes HDMI output, microphone/headphone ports, or touchscreen capabilities.

Which Camera Fits Your Photography Style?

To summarize their strengths and weaknesses, here’s where each camera shines and struggles:

Real-World Photography Use Cases

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones and Bokeh

Neither camera offers sophisticated autofocus or lens speed for professional portraits. Kodak’s lack of face detection and fixed lens limits background separation.

Panasonic’s zoom can simulate some shallow depth by zooming longer, yet maximum aperture f/2.8-5.9 doesn’t yield creamy bokeh. Both struggle with precise skin tone rendition due to basic CCD sensors and JPEG-only output.

For casual portraits in ample light, Panasonic outperforms Kodak by providing better AF accuracy and zoom framing flexibility.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Detail

Panasonic’s larger sensor delivers better dynamic range and lower noise, capturing more detail in skies and shadows.

Kodak’s high megapixel count is impressive but compromised by its smaller sensor and higher noise floor.

Neither camera provides weather sealing, restricting outdoor use in harsh environments.

Panasonic is better suited to scenic shots with more color fidelity and tonal gradations.

Wildlife and Sports Photography: Autofocus and Burst Speed

Both cameras fall short here. Panasonic’s 2fps burst and basic AF are inadequate for most wildlife or sports.

Kodak’s fixed lens and no AF relegates it to static subjects only.

Neither offers continuous autofocus or tracking to follow fast-moving subjects.

Street and Travel Photography: Portability and Discretion

Kodak’s slim, lightweight body makes it a discreet companion for street work.

Panasonic’s larger body is still portable but less stealthy.

Both lack silent shutter modes; Kodak’s slower max shutter speed also limits opportunities for capturing fleeting motion.

Battery life and storage make Panasonic slightly more reliable during all-day outings.

Macro, Night/Astro, and Video

Panasonic excels marginally at macro due to 5cm focus and zoom flexibility.

Kodak’s HD video capability and optical image stabilization enhance low-light video recording, despite other limitations.

Neither camera is optimal for astrophotography due to sensor size and ISO noise.

Overall Performance and Ratings

Looking at aggregate performance, Panasonic FS42 scores consistently higher across image quality, autofocus, and feature set, validating its higher price point.

Kodak M590 appeals to budget-conscious buyers desiring ultra-slim form and HD video.

Specialty Genre Ratings

From portrait to macro and video to travel:

• Panasonic leads in almost all genres, particularly landscapes, travel, and macro.

• Kodak’s niche remains low-cost video recording and ultra-portability.

Image Quality Gallery: Side-By-Side Comparisons

Kodak M590 front Kodak M590 screen back Panasonic FS42 front Panasonic FS42 screen back

Examine the real-world shot comparisons: Panasonic FS42 delivers more pleasing colors and less noise overall, while Kodak M590 images are thinner in tone and less sharp - especially at higher ISOs.

Final Recommendations: Who Should Choose Which?

If you want an extremely affordable, lightweight camera with HD video and simple snapshot capabilities - and your budget is tight - the Kodak M590 answers that call, assuming you accept compromises in image quality and autofocus.

If you can stretch your budget, prefer smoother image quality, zoom flexibility, and more reliable autofocus - even if it means a chunkier pocket presence - the Panasonic Lumix FS42 is clearly the better choice. It’s more versatile for travel, casual macro, and landscapes, providing a slightly more satisfying shooting experience.

Closing Thoughts

Ultracompact cameras like these offer straightforward, grab-and-go photography but require thoughtful evaluation beyond spec sheets. Testing these two shows how sensor size, lens versatility, AF performance, and ergonomics profoundly shape results - even with similarly sized bodies.

While neither qualifies as a powerhouse, the Panasonic FS42’s balanced specs and consistent performance justify its higher price and make it my overall pick for enthusiasts who want solid image quality from their ultracompact. The Kodak M590, however, remains surprisingly attractive for tight budget shoppers valuing slender design and HD video capture.

Hope this in-depth comparison helps you target the key features relevant to your photography passions - after all, the best camera is the one you enjoy using.

Happy shooting!