As well as being compared against other compacts, the Kodak EasyShare M320 is also often compared to mirrorless, super zooms, digicams and ultra compacts. The Kodak EasyShare M320's top rivals come from Fujifilm (such as the FinePix JX400 and the MX-1400) and Sony (such as the Alpha a6500)

compared toCompact competitors

Generally, compared to other compact competitors the Kodak M320 has a slightly smaller screen (2.7" vs 3"), doesn't have image stabilization (none vs digital), is older (january 2009 vs february 2011) and has a slower max shutter speed (1/1400 of a second vs 1/1800 of a second).

Fujifilm FinePix JX400

Fujifilm FinePix JX400
2 years newer

Significant advantages of the JX400 (vs the M320)

  • Much better wide angle: 28 mm vs 34 mm
  • Image stabilization:
    1. Digital
    vs None
  • Higher resolution movies: 720p @ 30fps vs 480p @ 30fps

Significant disadvantages of the JX400 (vs the M320)

  • None found

common strengths of the JX400 and M320

  • Wide aperture: f/2.6 vs f/2.8
  • Fairly small: Super compact (94×56×23 mm) vs Super compact (97×60×21 mm)
  • Thin: 0.9" vs 0.8"

Nikon Coolpix S230

Nikon Coolpix S230
similar age
$100

Significant advantages of the S230 (vs the M320)

  • Image stabilization:
    1. Digital
    vs None
  • Significantly larger screen: 3" vs 2.7"

Significant disadvantages of the S230 (vs the M320)

  • None found

common strengths of the S230 and M320

  • Fairly small: Super compact (57×91×20 mm) vs Super compact (97×60×21 mm)
  • Thin: 0.8" vs 0.8"
  • Light weight: 115 g vs 155 g

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

  • Wide aperture: f/2.7 vs f/2.8
  • Fairly small: Compact (92×63×22 mm) vs Super compact (97×60×21 mm)
  • Thin: 0.9" vs 0.8"

Kodak EasyShare M380

Kodak EasyShare M380
similar age

Significant advantages of the M380 (vs the M320)

  • Significantly larger screen: 3" vs 2.7"

Significant disadvantages of the M380 (vs the M320)

  • Significantly worse wide angle: 38 mm vs 34 mm

common strengths of the M380 and M320

  • Fairly small: Super compact (100×60×20 mm) vs Super compact (97×60×21 mm)
  • Thin: 0.8" vs 0.8"
  • Light weight: 155 g vs 155 g

compared toMirrorless interchangeable-lens competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak M320 compared to mirrorless interchangeable-lens competitors include: it is slightly smaller (super compact (97×60×21 mm) vs mid size (120×67×53 mm)), is thinner (0.8" vs 2.1") and is much lighter (155 g vs 453 g).

However, on average it has a much smaller screen (2.7" vs 3"), has a much lower resolution screen (230k dots vs 921k dots), doesn't have a viewfinder (none vs digital), doesn't have image stabilization (none vs sensor shift) and takes much lower resolution photos (8.6 MP vs 24 MP).

Sony Alpha a6500

Sony Alpha a6500
7 years newer
$1,198 (body only)
$1,298 16-50mm lens

Significant advantages of the Alpha a6500 (vs the M320)

  • Much larger screen: 3" vs 2.7"
  • Image stabilization:
    1. Sensor shift
    vs None
  • Much higher resolution screen: 921k dots vs 230k dots

Significant disadvantages of the Alpha a6500 (vs the M320)

  • Much heavier: 453 g vs 155 g
  • Significantly thicker: 2.1" vs 0.8"

common strengths of the Alpha a6500 and M320

  • Each has a built-in flash

compared toSuper zoom competitors

Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak M320 compared to super zoom competitors include: it has a slightly wider wide angle lens (34 mm vs 38 mm), has a much larger screen (2.7" vs 2.2"), is slightly smaller (super compact (97×60×21 mm) vs standard size (100×80×81 mm)), takes slightly higher resolution photos (8.6 MP vs 4 MP) and is newer (january 2009 vs august 2003).

However, on average it doesn't have a viewfinder (none vs digital), doesn't support an external flash, has a slower max shutter speed (1/1400 of a second vs 1/1700 of a second) and slightly shorter exposures (4 seconds vs 16 seconds).

Kodak DX6490

Placeholder
5 years older

Significant advantages of the DX6490 (vs the M320)

  • Supports an external flash
  • Has a viewfinder: Digital vs None

Significant disadvantages of the DX6490 (vs the M320)

  • Much smaller screen: 2.2" vs 2.7"
  • Worse wide angle: 38 mm vs 34 mm
  • Significantly thicker: 3.2" vs 0.8"

common strengths of the DX6490 and M320

  • Fairly small: Standard size (100×80×81 mm) vs Super compact (97×60×21 mm)
  • Light weight: 380 g vs 155 g
  • Thin: 3.2" vs 0.8"

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 slightly 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 smaller screen: 1.6" vs 2.7"
  • Worse wide angle: 38 mm vs 34 mm
  • Significantly lower true resolution: 1.2 MP vs 8.6 MP

common strengths of the MX-1400 and M320

  • Thin: 1.5" vs 0.8"

compared toUltra compact competitors

Generally, compared to ultra compact competitors the Kodak M320 has a much narrower wide angle lens (34 mm vs 27 mm), is slightly larger (super compact (97×60×21 mm) vs ultra compact (92×54×20 mm)), is older (january 2009 vs february 2011), is slightly heavier (155 g vs 105 g) and has a slower max shutter speed (1/1400 of a second vs 1/2000 of a second).

Olympus VG110

Olympus VG-110
2 years newer
$95

Significant advantages of the VG110 (vs the M320)

  • None found

Significant disadvantages of the VG110 (vs the M320)

  • None found

common strengths of the VG110 and M320

  • None found