As well as being compared against other compacts, the Kodak EasyShare M320 is also often compared to digicams. The Kodak EasyShare M320's top rivals come from Kodak (such as the EasyShare M380 and the EasyShare C140) and Fujifilm (such as the MX-1400)

Competitor classes

compared toCompact competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak M320 compared to other compact competitors include: it has a slightly wider wide angle lens (34 mm vs 38 mm) and is newer (january 2009 vs august 2005).

However, on average it has slightly less zoom (3x vs 5x) and doesn't have a viewfinder (none vs tunnel).

Kodak EasyShare M380

Kodak EasyShare M380
similar age

Significant advantages of the M380 (vs the M320)

  • Much more zoom: 5x vs 3x

Significant disadvantages of the M380 (vs the M320)

  • Significantly worse wide angle: 38 mm vs 34 mm

common strengths of the M380 and M320

  • Each has a built-in flash
  • Fairly small: Super compact (100×60×20 mm) vs Super compact (97×60×21 mm)
  • Very thin: 0.8" vs 0.8"

Kodak EasyShare C140

Kodak EasyShare C140
similar age

Significant advantages of the C140 (vs the M320)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the C140 (vs the M320)

  • None found

common strengths of the C140 and M320

  • Each has a built-in flash
  • Fairly small: Compact (92×63×22 mm) vs Super compact (97×60×21 mm)
  • Very thin: 0.9" vs 0.8"

Casio Exilim EX-Z110

Placeholder
3 years older

Significant advantages of the EX-Z110 (vs the M320)

  • Has a viewfinder: Tunnel vs None
  • Faster max shutter speed: 1/2000 of a second vs 1/1400 of a second

Significant disadvantages of the EX-Z110 (vs the M320)

  • Smaller screen: 2" vs 2.7"
  • Thicker: 1.1" vs 0.8"

common strengths of the EX-Z110 and M320

  • Each has a built-in flash
  • Thin: 1.1" vs 0.8"
  • Light weight: 151 g vs 155 g

compared toDigicam competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak M320 compared to digicam competitors include: it has a slightly wider aperture (f/2.8 vs f/3.5), has a much wider wide angle lens (34 mm vs 38 mm), has a much larger screen (2.7" vs 1.6"), takes significantly higher resolution photos (8.6 MP vs 1.2 MP) and is newer (january 2009 vs january 2000).

However, on average it doesn't have a viewfinder (none vs tunnel).

Fujifilm MX-1400

Placeholder
9 years older

Significant advantages of the MX-1400 (vs the M320)

  • Has a viewfinder: Tunnel vs None

Significant disadvantages of the MX-1400 (vs the M320)

  • Much worse wide angle: 38 mm vs 34 mm
  • Much smaller screen: 1.6" vs 2.7"
  • Narrower aperture: f/3.5 vs f/2.8

common strengths of the MX-1400 and M320

  • Each has a built-in flash