Kodak M590 vs. Sony TX200V: An Ultracompact Camera Showdown

If you’ve ever found yourself caught between the allure of affordable, no-frills point-and-shoots and the desire for slightly more advanced pocket cameras, then these two contenders - the Kodak M590 and the Sony Cyber-shot TX200V - might have crossed your radar. Both belong to the ultracompact category, making them incredibly portable options for casual outings, travel, or those “just-in-case” moments when you want better photos than your phone can muster.

I’ve personally handled thousands of cameras over my 15+ years in photography, subjecting them to rigorous real-world testing. Today, I’ll peel back the layers on these two ultracompacts, revealing how they perform across a vast array of photography styles, their technical capabilities, and ultimately, which camera might earn a place in your camera bag.

Let’s dive in.

Getting a Feel for It: Size, Build, and Controls

When it comes to ultracompact cameras, size and ergonomics can make or break your experience - especially if you plan to carry them daily or shoot on the go.

Here, the Kodak M590 and Sony TX200V share a similar footprint, but subtle physical differences influence handling. The Kodak measures 97 x 58 x 15 mm, while the Sony is slightly more compact at 96 x 58 x 16 mm - no huge shakes in dimensions, but the Sony’s marginally thicker build accommodates a bigger battery and advanced features.

Both cameras lack a traditional viewfinder, relying solely on LCD screens for composing shots - making steady hands essential. The Kodak M590 has a fixed 2.5-inch screen with a modestly low resolution (230k dots), and no touchscreen functionality. In contrast, Sony’s TX200V boasts a larger 3.3-inch OLED touchscreen with 1.23 million dots, prioritizing ease of use and visibility even under bright outdoor light.

Ergonomically, neither camera offers the “clubs-for-thumbs” grips that DSLR or mirrorless cameras might, but the Sony’s rubberized finish and tactile buttons feel more refined. Kodak’s model skews towards budget simplicity, with a somewhat plasticky vibe and smaller buttons that may frustrate users with larger hands or in fast shooting situations.

Notice above in the top view how Sony embraces more direct control options and a dedicated zoom lever flanking the shutter - an important consideration for enthusiasts itching to tweak shots without fumbling through menus. The Kodak’s minimalist approach means fewer options at your fingertips but also fewer distractions for beginners - a tradeoff that’s worth contemplating depending on your comfort level.

Pros and Cons of the Build and Ergonomics:

Under the Hood: Sensor Technology and Image Quality

One of the biggest factors shaping image quality is the sensor, and here Sony comes out ahead with a significantly larger and more advanced sensor.

The Kodak M590 houses a fairly minuscule 1/3-inch CCD sensor with a surface area of 17.28 mm², offering 14 megapixels of resolution. It's an old-school CCD - good for basic daylight snaps but limited in capturing dynamic range and low-light detail. The fixed lens and lack of manual focus or advanced autofocus systems restrict creative potential. The Kodak maxes out at ISO 6400, but in real-world shooting, anything beyond ISO 800 will rapidly degrade image quality with noise and softness.

On the flip side, the Sony TX200V employs a larger 1/2.3-inch BSI CMOS sensor measuring 28.07 mm² with 18 megapixels resolution. The backside illumination (BSI) improves low-light performance, allowing cleaner images at higher ISO values up to 12800 (though practical use usually caps closer to 3200 for acceptable noise levels). Furthermore, Sony’s BIONZ image processor introduces better noise reduction, sharper detail reproduction, and superior color science - meaning more pleasing skin tones and richer landscapes.

Considering landscape and portrait photography, the Sony better retains highlight and shadow detail, thanks to its sensor dynamic range superiority. Kodak’s smaller sensor yields flatter images with less latitude for post-processing.

Additionally, both cameras have anti-aliasing filters, which reduces the risk of moiré patterns but softens fine texture - a typical ultracompact trait.

Real-World Insight:

In daylight and well-lit scenarios, the Kodak M590 delivers decent snapshots if you keep ISO low and avoid cropping heavily. But venture into dimmer environments, indoors, or twilight, and the Kodak’s noise artifacts multiply, colors wash out, and details smear. The Sony TX200V handles those same conditions with considerably more grace, maintaining usable quality and color fidelity.

Autofocus and Shooting Performance: How Snappy and Accurate?

For any photographer chasing fleeting moments - be it sports, wildlife, or candid street shots - the autofocus system’s speed and accuracy are paramount.

The Kodak M590 disappoints here a bit. It features no autofocus modes beyond single auto-focus, no face or eye detection, nor tracking capabilities. Essentially, you point, half-press, and hope your subject stays put (or you switch to manual exposure and pray). Also, it lacks continuous or burst shooting modes, drastically limiting action photography.

Sony, with its TX200V, introduces a contrast-detection AF system with 9 focus points, including face detection and tracking. This gives it clear advantages for moving subjects and portraits alike - eye detection isn’t available, but the AF tracking keeps shifting people or animals reasonably sharp.

Moreover, the Sony offers 10 fps burst shooting, which for an ultracompact is impressive, enabling you to capture split-second sequences impossible with the Kodak. This can make all the difference in wildlife photography or sports.

The Kodak’s shutter speed range (8 sec to 1/1400 sec) is more limited compared to Sony’s range (2 sec to 1/1600 sec), which impacts exposure flexibility, especially in low-light or fast-action scenarios.

Practical Note:

If you shoot slow-moving subjects, landscapes, or portraits in controlled lighting, Kodak’s AF can suffice. But for dynamic scenes - kids playing, street hustle, animals darting - the Sony’s AF prowess and burst mode offer a tangible edge.

Screens, Viewfinders, and User Interface

Given the absence of electronic viewfinders on both models, the LCD screen becomes your primary window to compose and review images.

The Kodak’s 2.5-inch screen is stuck in the early 2010s era: low-res with a fixed angle and no touch input. This not only strains usability under bright sunlight but also lacks the customization or intuitive controls that modern touchscreens provide. Kodak’s menus are basic, sometimes sluggish, and adjusting settings is less straightforward.

Sony’s 3.3-inch XtraFine TruBlack OLED touchscreen, however, is a joy to use. The display’s deep blacks and vibrant colors aid composition in tricky light, while touch controls speed up menu navigation and AF point selection. I’ve often found that touchscreen-enabled ultracompacts are ideal for quick street shooting - just tap the subject on-screen, and you’re good to go.

Sony also supports custom white balance, a plus for enthusiasts wanting more color accuracy. The Kodak lacks this feature entirely.

The intuitiveness of Sony’s interface, with quick access menus and helpful on-screen guides, makes photography feel less like a chore and more like fun - especially important to keep amateur shooters engaged.

Lens Specs and Optical Performance

Both cameras come with fixed lenses - no interchangeable options here, which is typical in ultracompacts.

• Kodak M590: Lens focal length is unspecified, but with a 7.5x digital zoom multiplier, suggesting limited optical zoom capabilities and reliance on digital zoom, which degrades image quality. No aperture info limits control over depth of field or low-light performance.

• Sony TX200V: A 28-140mm equivalent, 5x optical zoom with a variable aperture ranging from f/3.5 at wide to f/4.8 at telephoto. This range covers wide-angle landscapes and reasonably tight portraits or street shots. The close macro focusing distance of 3 cm means you can shoot small subjects in good detail.

The optical stabilization on both helps suppress handshake blur, but Sony’s is generally more effective given newer sensor tech and firmware. Kodak’s optical IS seems congenitally timid, helping mainly at wider angles but less so telephoto or in low light.

How They Perform Across Photography Genres

To help you parse which camera suits your interests, I put together a performance breakdown by popular photography types - real-world, no-nonsense style.

Kodak M590 front Kodak M590 screen back Sony TX200V front Sony TX200V screen back

Portraits:

• Kodak: Fair skin tone rendition under daylight, but background separation is weak due to small sensor and fixed aperture lens. No eye detection AF means the focus can wander frustratingly.
• Sony: Warmer, richer skin tones, with face detection making portraits easier. Bokeh is soft but present at 140mm equivalent focal length, which helps isolate the subject admirably.

Landscapes:

• Kodak’s lower resolution and limited dynamic range result in flatter images with less fine detail. The fixed display hampers composition from tricky angles outdoors.
• Sony’s larger sensor and wider zoom offer more detail and punch. Environmental sealing also improves reliability when hiking or shooting near fog or light rain (see below).

Wildlife:

• Kodak struggles - no continuous AF, no burst mode, very limited zoom. Capturing moving animals is largely guesswork.
• Sony offers burst rates of 10 fps and AF tracking, enabling better subject retention. The lens zoom covers modest telephoto reach but sufficient for small-to-medium wildlife at a distance.

Sports:

• Kodak isn’t built for it; slow AF and no burst kill any chances at good action shots.
• Sony’s 10 fps shooting and reasonable tracking is competent for casual sports - think local soccer games or school events rather than professional fields.

Street:

• Kodak’s subtle profile helps with discretion, but poor AF in low light and slower operation frustrate swift candid shooting.
• Sony’s fast AF, touchscreen focusing, and reliability in mixed lighting conditions make it the better “street sniper” of the two, despite a slightly larger size.

Macro:

• Kodak offers no dedicated macro range; closest focusing is unspectacular.
• Sony’s 3 cm macro range and sharp optics yield more detail in close-ups, ideal for flower or insect snaps on vacations or nature walks.

Night/Astro:

• Kodak’s max shutter of 8 seconds and ISO limitations restrict night shooting potential severely.
• Sony’s longer shutter up to 2 seconds is not stellar but paired with a better sensor ISO handling, it yields superior night imagery - still no long bulb modes, though. Neither is astrophotography-friendly but Sony offers an edge.

Video:

• Kodak shoots 720p HD video in H.264. No external mics, no stabilization beyond basic optical IS.
• Sony supports full HD 1080p at 60fps in AVCHD and MPEG-4, with optical stabilization but no external mic ports. Slightly more versatile shooter video-wise, though still entry-level for serious video.

Travel:

• Kodak’s low weight and simple design suit casual backpackers with a tight budget. Battery life info is missing but likely limited.
• Sony’s better zoom range, build quality, GPS for geotagging, longer battery life (approx. 220 shots), and ruggedized construction (environmental sealing) position it as a more reliable travel companion - albeit much more expensive.

Professional Work:

• Neither camera is built for pro-grade output or workflows. Absence of RAW shooting on both is a major limitation for post-processing control. Sony edges slightly with richer JPEGs and better controls but still well below prosumer standards.

Reliability and Durability: Can They Withstand Your Adventures?

The Kodak M590 offers no weather sealing or rugged features. As budget travel cameras prone to accidental bumps or light moisture, you’ll want to treat it gently. Conversely, the Sony TX200V offers environmental sealing against dust and light moisture, though it’s neither waterproof nor shockproof. A welcome addition that reassures when shooting on outdoor treks or sudden weather shifts.

Physical build on Sony feels more solid and less likely to creak over time. Kodak’s build quality is fair but clearly oriented toward entry-level users who expect modest usage.

Battery Life and Storage

One area where Sony excels over Kodak is battery life. Kodak’s specs omit battery details, but given the era and component choices, expect under 150 shots per charge - barely enough for a day of casual shooting. Sony’s NP-BN battery provides about 220 shots, which in practical terms means a full day of travel shooting without frantic power saving.

Both cameras accept a single storage card slot - Sony supporting Memory Stick Duo variants, Kodak less explicit but presumably SD cards. You’ll want to invest in decent quality cards to accommodate the Sony’s higher-resolution images and video footage.

Connectivity and Extras

Neither camera offers wireless features like Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC, reflecting their design eras and price points. The Sony does, however, include built-in GPS tagging, a rare find in this segment that can delight travel shooters who want automatic geotagging of photos for easy mapping and archiving.

Sony supports HDMI output for video playback on TVs, which the Kodak lacks, and USB 2.0 on Sony enables faster file transfers (Kodak oddly has no USB port, which is quite limiting).

Flash capabilities also tilt toward Sony’s advantage - multiple flash modes and a reasonable 3.1-meter range, while Kodak’s limited built-in flash and unspecified range limit utility in low-light fill scenarios.

The Price-to-Performance Equation

The Kodak M590’s asking price sits around $120, making it hugely attractive to budget-conscious buyers who want a no-guilt “throw-in-the-bag” camera for simple point-and-shoot tasks. It’s perfect for casual users prioritizing size and price over serious image quality.

Sony TX200V retails closer to $500 (used/discounted pricing likely lower), reflecting the step-up in sensor tech, optics, video quality, and build robustness. For enthusiasts or semi-pros wanting a pocketable secondary camera capable of respectable image output and low-light adaptability, it’s a solid, if niche, choice.

If you consider the projected lifespan and feature sets, Sony’s value holds up better for those who shoot regularly and want a lightweight backup. Kodak is a “grab and forget” for occasional bursts.

My Final Thoughts and Recommendations

Kodak M590

• Best for absolute beginners or casual shooters on a shoestring budget
• Excellent pocketability and straightforward controls
• Limited low-light, dynamic range, and burst performance
• Avoid for action, wildlife, low-light, or creative manual shooting

Sony Cyber-shot TX200V

• Stronger all-around performer for enthusiasts and travel shooters
• Bigger sensor, sharper images, impressive zoom and macro capabilities
• Superior autofocus and burst shooting make it better suited for dynamic subjects
• GPS and environmental sealing swell its travel-friendly credentials
• Falls short for professionals needing RAW or advanced manual controls

Who should buy what?

• If you want a simple, affordable travel snapshot camera for daylight snaps and pocket convenience, make the Kodak your cheapskate companion.
• If you value image quality, versatile zoom, and more sophisticated shooting modes while still staying ultracompact, invest in the Sony - it will repay you in better memories and photos.

A Photographer’s Perspective

When I’m out in the field or exploring urban corners, the tools I choose directly influence not only the aesthetic but the joy of the photographic experience. The Kodak M590 is like a reliable but untrained assistant - simple, but limited and often frustrating when I want to control the outcome. The Sony TX200V is more akin to a trusty sidekick that anticipates my needs: the quick focus lock on faces, the satisfying burst captures, and that splash of vibrancy in the image colors make all the difference.

Sure, neither will replace your full-frame beast, but compared to the era and price segments, the Sony TX200V stands commendably, while Kodak’s M590 best suits minimal expectations.

For those who want to explore beyond these models, consider mirrorless cameras with compact zoom primes if you crave more control and quality; but for pocketability and straightforwardness, these two remain noteworthy.

Feel free to ask questions, and happy snapping!