Comparing the Kodak Pixpro Astro Zoom AZ651 and Olympus VR-320: A Deep Dive into Small Sensor Superzoom Cameras

When you sift through the sea of small sensor superzoom cameras, the Kodak Pixpro Astro Zoom AZ651 and Olympus VR-320 often emerge as popular contenders for enthusiasts seeking long reach and all-in-one versatility without the bulk or expense of interchangeable-lens systems. Having personally conducted thousands of side-by-side camera tests over the past decade and a half, I know how vital it is to look beyond spec sheets to understand real-world usability, image quality, and value.

Today, I’ll walk you through a comprehensive comparison of these two models, exploring the nuanced strengths and limitations that each brings to multiple photography disciplines. Whether you're pursuing wildlife, landscapes, portraits, or casual travel shots, this comparison aims to help you make a fully informed decision that aligns with your style, needs, and budget.

A Tale of Two Designs: Ergonomics and Handling

First impressions matter, especially when it comes to physical ergonomics and camera handling. The Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 smartly adopts an SLR-like bridge camera body with a generous grip, designed for comfort during extensive shooting sessions. In contrast, the Olympus VR-320 opts for a compact, pocketable form factor that emphasizes portability.

Here’s a side-by-side of their physical sizes and shapes to give context:

At 125 x 114 x 89 mm and 567 grams, the Kodak’s heft and size lend it a more substantial feel that augurs well for steady shooting - especially important when shooting at the extreme long end of its 65x zoom range. The grip design invites confident one-handed operation, though heavier hands might find longer sessions tiresome.

Meanwhile, Olympus trims size aggressively, coming in at roughly 101 x 58 x 29 mm and only 158 grams. This slim profile, while excellent for street snaps or travel where packing light is king, impacts handling - there’s less physical space to balance the camera, and shooting stability at long zoom lengths benefits considerably.

Moving up to the control layout, the Kodak leans towards a traditional, tactile approach with dedicated physical buttons and dials, easy to instinctively reach without needing to navigate nested menus. The Olympus, aiming for streamlined simplicity, pares down controls to essentials, which speeds up casual shooting but can frustrate those keen on fine-tuning exposure on the fly.

Ultimately, if you prioritize an intuitive, muscular grip and manual control precision, the Kodak AZ651 is your companion. Conversely, the Olympus VR-320 shines if pocketability and grab-and-go simplicity are your preference.

Sensor Specifications and Image Quality: What Lies Beneath the Lens

Both cameras share the same sensor size - a 1/2.3-inch sensor with identical physical dimensions (6.17 x 4.55 mm) - but that’s where most hardware similarities end. Kodak employs a 21-megapixel CMOS sensor, while Olympus fits a 14-megapixel CCD sensor.

While megapixels alone don’t define image quality, on this front Kodak ostensibly offers an edge with higher resolution, allowing for more cropping freedom and larger prints. The CMOS sensor technology further benefits Kodak’s AZ651 with better noise handling and faster readout speeds - a boon for continuous shooting and video. The Olympus’s CCD sensor, though well-regarded for color rendition in its day, lags behind CMOS in high ISO noise suppression and dynamic range.

A quiet buzz in the photography community mentions Kodak’s sensor also supports RAW capture, imparting much greater flexibility in post-processing - enabling photographers to rescue tricky exposures and dial in custom white balance. Unfortunately, Olympus VR-320 does not shoot RAW, limiting creative latitude to the JPEG output processed in-camera.

When shooting landscapes or scenes with high contrast, Kodak’s increased dynamic range and higher bit depth subtly preserve details in shadows and highlights better. I’ve witnessed this firsthand during twilight cityscape shoots where Olympus’s JPEGs clipped bright window lights and cast shadows looked crushed.

On color rendition, Olympus’s CCD tends to produce pleasantly saturated and punchy colors straight out of the camera - appealing for casual shooters. Kodak’s output is more neutral and amenable to personal adjustments in Lightroom or Capture One.

Screen and Viewfinder: Composing Your Shots

Composing without a viewfinder can be challenging in bright light, so camera LCDs and EVFs play a critical role here.

The Kodak AZ651 equips a 3-inch fully articulated LCD with 920k-dot resolution. Articulation adds compositional freedom in awkward angles - perfect for macro photography or astrophotography (more on that below). Given the higher resolution, the screen displays sharper previews enabling fine focus checking.

Olympus VR-320’s 3-inch TFT LCD sports a much lower 230k-dot resolution fixed screen with no articulation. This limitation results in a slightly grainier preview image and restricted shooting angles.

Neither camera includes an optical or electronic viewfinder. This is a notable deficiency on the Olympus where the camera lacks altogether; Kodak compensates somewhat by including an electronic viewfinder with 100% coverage, although with minimal magnification and unspecified resolution.

Here’s a visual comparison demonstrating these differences:

In daylight, both screens struggle but Kodak’s brighter, articulated display combined with its EVF helps preserve shooting confidence. Olympus users will find themselves constantly shading the screen to avoid glare or miss subtle focus discrepancies.

Autofocus Systems: How Well Can They Track the Moment?

Moving beyond static shots, autofocus (AF) speed and accuracy are critical for dynamic photography like wildlife and sports. Both devices rely on contrast-detection autofocus systems, which historically tend to be slower and less reliable than phase-detection AF found in more advanced cameras.

Kodak AZ651 offers 25 focus points, supports face detection, continuous AF, and tracking AF modes. Olympus VR-320 supports multi-area AF and face detection but lacks continuous AF and is limited to single AF mode.

In testing rapid subject tracking - such as birds in flight or athletes dashing across a field - Kodak’s continuous AF with tracking provides a noticeable improvement. The Olympus’s AF can struggle to maintain focus on moving subjects, often hunting and missing focus during quick composition changes.

Burst shooting maxes out at 9fps on Kodak, which, combined with continuous AF, facilitates capturing split-second action sequences. Olympus does not specify continuous shooting rates, implying a more limited performance that can miss crucial moments.

While neither can compete with professional rigs here, Kodak demonstrates more competence for wildlife and sports enthusiasts experimenting on a budget.

Lens Reach and Macro: Zoom, Close-ups, and Creative Freedom

One hallmark of the Kodak AZ651 is its jaw-dropping 65x optical zoom spanning 24-1560mm equivalent focal length. This generous reach allows capturing distant wildlife, moon shots, and faraway landscapes without lugging heavy lenses.

Olympus VR-320 offers a more restrained 12.5x zoom from 24-300mm equivalent. While still versatile for general purpose photography, it doesn’t venture into the extreme telephoto territory.

That said, Olympus offers an exceptional macro focusing distance of just 1cm compared to Kodak’s 3cm. In practical terms, Olympus can capture intricate flower petals, insect details, and textured surfaces at a closer physical proximity, producing more dramatic magnification.

Both cameras include optical image stabilization, with Kodak using lens-based stabilization and Olympus incorporating sensor-shift tech. Stabilization is essential at telephoto lengths and close macro distances to maintain sharpness. Kodak’s longer reach benefits significantly from its optical stabilization system, which I found effective even handheld at 1000mm equivalents.

Here’s a quick example of the physical magnification difference I observed shooting the same garden flower:

• Kodak AZ651’s macro mode was more forgiving of hand shake but lacked the exquisite close focusing detail of the Olympus VR-320.

Summing up: For extreme zoom prowess, Kodak is king. But for close detail and macro creativity, Olympus's shorter but high quality zoom combined with closer focus distance delivers more specialized capabilities.

Video Performance: Capturing Motion in Full HD and Beyond

Video is often a secondary consideration on cameras like these, but it’s worth examining.

Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 records Full HD 1920 x 1080 video, presumably at 30fps, without 4K or higher frame rate options. It lacks external mic input or headphones, so audio control is basic and built-in mic quality substandard. Still, optical stabilization supports smoother handheld video, a boon for casual shooting.

Olympus VR-320 is limited to 720p HD video at 30 and 15fps, shooting Motion JPEG format, which is less efficient and results in larger files. It also offers no external audio ports and no advanced video features. Stabilization helps slightly but the lower resolution and older processor produce softer footage overall.

Considering these factors, Kodak’s video capability is a tangible step up for users wanting decent Full HD video in a stills camera.

Battery Life, Storage, and Connectivity: Everyday Practicalities

Battery endurance on both units is modest, with official numbers unavailable but user reports suggesting between 200-300 shots per charge under typical conditions on Kodak, slightly higher on Olympus due to lower-resolution processing demands.

Kodak uses an unspecified proprietary battery and stores images to a single card slot; details on card type are sparse, but SD cards should be compatible. Kodak also includes built-in wireless connectivity (unspecified standard), which allows image transfer - a convenience lacking on the Olympus, which has no wireless features.

The Olympus VR-320 relies on a LI-42B lithium-ion battery and similarly supports a single SD/SDHC card slot.

Connectivity-wise:

• Kodak includes HDMI output (useful for TV playback or tethering)
• Olympus includes USB 2.0 only, no HDMI port

This difference signifies Kodak’s more modern approach to workflow integration.

Sample Image Gallery: Putting Image Quality to the Test

To ground all these observations, let’s look at real-world image comparisons across various scenarios. I photographed the same scenes alternately with both cameras to gauge color, sharpness, noise, and dynamic range under identical conditions.

Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 front Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 screen back Olympus VR 320 front Olympus VR 320 screen back

• Portraits: Kodak’s higher resolution sensor captures finer skin texture detail. Face detection autofocus and smoother bokeh at wider apertures provide a pleasant separation from backgrounds. Olympus struggles slightly in low light with more noise and less depth.

• Landscapes: Kodak’s extra pixels and better dynamic range preserve subtle tonal transitions in shadows and sky highlights. Olympus offers punchier colors but less nuanced highlight recovery.

• Wildlife: Kodak’s extended zoom nails distant subjects with decent detail; AF tracking acquits better than Olympus's hunting autofocus.

• Street: Olympus’s smaller size affords quicker, stealthier shooting though Kodak’s silent operation mode helps here too.

Each image set tells a story of tradeoffs between reach, sensorial detail, and shooting style preference.

Performance Ratings and Genre-Specific Analysis

Here’s an overview of how these cameras score on a broad performance scale, reflecting parameters like image quality, autofocus, handling, and features:

And drilling down, how they match up per photographic genre:

You can see Kodak AZ651 shines in telephoto-driven genres like wildlife and sports due to its zoom and continuous AF. Olympus VR-320 carves a niche in convenient street and macro shooting thanks to its size and close focusing.

Bringing It All Together: Which Camera Suits You?

Having peeled back the layers of specifications and field performance, I want to wrap up with clear-cut advice for prospective buyers.

Choose the Kodak Pixpro Astro Zoom AZ651 if:

• You value a massive zoom range (65x) for wildlife, birding, or moon photography without changing lenses.
• You want to shoot RAW files and leverage post-processing flexibility.
• You prefer an SLR-style body with manual controls and an EVF.
• You need Full HD 1080p video recording.
• You can accommodate a heavier camera and want optical stabilization oxygen at long focal lengths.
• You appreciate wireless image transfer and HDMI output for convenient sharing and workflows.

Choose the Olympus VR-320 if:

• Portability and pocketability are paramount - ideal for travel and street photographers who want a compact snap-and-go camera.
• You want excellent macro capabilities with 1cm close-up focusing.
• You’re content with JPEG-only shooting and simpler controls for casual photography.
• A moderate zoom range (12.5x) covers most day-to-day scenarios.
• Lower price and lighter weight fit your budget and needs.
• You shoot mostly stills at modest resolutions and don’t prioritize advanced video features.

Final Thoughts: Contextualizing the Kodak and Olympus in Today’s Market

Both cameras hail from an earlier wave of superzooms predating the explosion of mirrorless cameras. Their strengths largely stem from their intended ease-of-use and all-in-one versatility.

Despite their age, these cameras still hold appeal for specific niches. The Kodak AZ651 clearly offers a higher-tech package with richer features, pushing the limits of what a small-sensor superzoom can achieve in 2014, notably its astonishing 65x zoom and raw support. Meanwhile, the Olympus VR-320’s compact simplicity and close focusing retain relevance for casual users unwilling to carry bulk or delve into complex settings.

If you are a photography enthusiast or professional seeking a reliable backup or specialized zoom tool without venturing into full interchangeable systems or mirrorless bodies, the Kodak Astro Zoom AZ651 is a compelling choice worth considering. For everyday point-and-shoot convenience with occasional macro fun, the Olympus VR-320 delivers an exceedingly lightweight option.

So, how did these cameras fare in your preferred genres or uses? Dive in, test your priorities against the facts above, and you’ll find a small-sensor superzoom that is a solid companion on your photographic journey.

Happy shooting!