Kodak Slice Competitors

As well as being compared against other compacts, the Kodak Slice is also often compared to boutiques, ultra compacts, travel zooms, super zooms and mirrorless. The Kodak Slice's top rivals come from Sony (such as the Cyber-shot DSC-R1 and the Cybershot DSC-WX30) and Kodak (such as the EasyShare M590 and the PixPro AZ521)

Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak Slice compared to other compact competitors include: it has a much larger screen (3.5" vs 2.7"), has better image stabilization (lens vs digital), takes slightly higher resolution photos (9.7 MP vs 3.9 MP), has a touch screen and is thinner (0.7" vs 1.1").

However, on average it has a much narrower aperture (f/4.8 vs f/2.8), records lower quality movies (848 x 480 @ 30fps vs 720p @ 24fps), has a significantly narrower wide angle lens (35 mm vs 28 mm), doesn't record movies in 24p and doesn't have an OLED screen (LCD vs OLED).

Fujifilm FinePix Z90 1 year newer $215	Significant advantages of the Z90 (vs the Slice) Significantly wider aperture: f/3.9 vs f/4.8 Much better wide angle: 28 mm vs 35 mm Significant disadvantages of the Z90 (vs the Slice) Much smaller screen: 3.0" vs 3.5" Worse image stabilization: Digital vs Lens common strengths of the Z90 and Slice Fairly small: Super compact 95x56x20 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm Have touch screens Thin: 0.8" vs 0.7"
	Compare the Fujifilm FinePix Z90 vs the Kodak Slice
Olympus VG-180 3 years newer $70	Significant advantages of the VG-180 (vs the Slice) Much wider aperture: f/2.8 vs f/4.8 Much better wide angle: 26 mm vs 35 mm Much better macro capability: 1 cm vs 10 cm Significant disadvantages of the VG-180 (vs the Slice) Much smaller screen: 2.7" vs 3.5" Significantly larger: Compact 104x60x28 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm No touch screen common strengths of the VG-180 and Slice None found
	Compare the Olympus VG-180 vs the Kodak Slice
Nikon Coolpix S80 8 months newer	Significant advantages of the S80 (vs the Slice) Much wider aperture: f/3.6 vs f/4.8 Supports 24p Has an OLED screen: OLED vs LCD Significant disadvantages of the S80 (vs the Slice) None found common strengths of the S80 and Slice Very large screens: 3.5" vs 3.5" Fairly small: Super compact 99x63x17 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm Good image stabilization: Lens vs Lens
	Compare the Nikon Coolpix S80 vs the Kodak Slice
Olympus VG-160 2 years newer $65 - $100	Significant advantages of the VG-160 (vs the Slice) Much wider aperture: f/2.8 vs f/4.8 Much better wide angle: 26 mm vs 35 mm Much better macro capability: 2 cm vs 10 cm Significant disadvantages of the VG-160 (vs the Slice) Much smaller screen: 3.0" vs 3.5" No touch screen Worse image stabilization: Digital vs Lens common strengths of the VG-160 and Slice Fairly small: Super compact 96x57x19 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm Thin: 0.7" vs 0.7"
	Compare the Olympus VG-160 vs the Kodak Slice
Canon PowerShot S410 5 years older	Significant advantages of the S410 (vs the Slice) Much wider aperture: f/2.8 vs f/4.8 Significantly better macro capability: 5 cm vs 10 cm Has a viewfinder: Tunnel vs None Significant disadvantages of the S410 (vs the Slice) Much smaller screen: 1.5" vs 3.5" No image stabilization: None vs Lens Much lower true resolution: 3.9 MP vs 9.7 MP common strengths of the S410 and Slice None found
	Compare the Canon PowerShot S410 vs the Kodak Slice
Canon ELPH 320 HS 2 years newer $138 - $250	Significant advantages of the 320 HS (vs the Slice) Much wider aperture: f/2.7 vs f/4.8 Much better wide angle: 24 mm vs 35 mm Supports 24p Significant disadvantages of the 320 HS (vs the Slice) Significantly smaller screen: 3.2" vs 3.5" common strengths of the 320 HS and Slice Larger than average screens: 3.2" vs 3.5" Fairly small: Super compact 94x57x21 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm Good image stabilization: Lens vs Lens
	Compare the Canon PowerShot ELPH 320 HS vs the Kodak Slice

Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak Slice compared to boutique competitors include: it records higher quality movies (848 x 480 @ 30fps vs none), has a much larger screen (3.5" vs 2.0"), is much smaller (super compact 104x60x17 mm vs large 139x168x97 mm), has image stabilization (lens vs none) and has a touch screen.

However, on average it has a much narrower aperture (f/4.8 vs f/2.8), has a significantly narrower wide angle lens (35 mm vs 24 mm), has a slightly smaller sensor (1/2.3" 6.2x4.6mm vs sigma x3 21.5x14.4mm), doesn't shoot RAW and has a CCD-family sensor (CCD vs CMOS).

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 4 years older	Significant advantages of the DSC-R1 (vs the Slice) Much wider aperture: f/2.8 vs f/4.8 Significantly better wide angle: 24 mm vs 35 mm Shoots RAW Significant disadvantages of the DSC-R1 (vs the Slice) Much smaller screen: 2.0" vs 3.5" Much larger: Large 139x168x97 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm No image stabilization: None vs Lens common strengths of the DSC-R1 and Slice Incredible zoom: 5x vs 5x
	Compare the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 vs the Kodak Slice

Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak Slice compared to ultra compact competitors include: it has a significantly larger screen (3.5" vs 3.0") and has a touch screen.

However, on average it has a much narrower aperture (f/4.8 vs f/2.6), records lower quality movies (848 x 480 @ 30fps vs 1080p @ 30fps), has a much narrower wide angle lens (35 mm vs 26 mm), slightly lower maximum light sensitivity (3,200 ISO vs 12,800 ISO) and doesn't shoot as fast continuously (3 fps vs 10 fps).

Kodak EasyShare M590 7 months newer	Significant advantages of the M590 (vs the Slice) None found Significant disadvantages of the M590 (vs the Slice) Much smaller screen: 2.7" vs 3.5" No touch screen common strengths of the M590 and Slice Each has a built-in flash Good image stabilization: Lens vs Lens Thin: 0.6" vs 0.7"
	Compare the EasyShare M590 vs the Slice
Sony Cybershot DSC-WX30 1 year newer	Significant advantages of the DSC-WX30 (vs the Slice) Much wider aperture: f/2.6 vs f/4.8 Much better wide angle: 25 mm vs 35 mm Higher resolution movies: 1080p @ 30fps vs 848 x 480 @ 30fps Significant disadvantages of the DSC-WX30 (vs the Slice) Much smaller screen: 3.0" vs 3.5" common strengths of the DSC-WX30 and Slice Each has a built-in flash Larger than average screens: 3.0" vs 3.5" Good image stabilization: Lens vs Lens
	Compare the Sony Cybershot DSC-WX30 vs the Kodak Slice
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX30 3 years newer $198 - $249	Significant advantages of the DSC-TX30 (vs the Slice) Much wider aperture: f/3.5 vs f/4.8 Much better wide angle: 26 mm vs 35 mm Higher resolution movies: 1080p @ 60fps vs 848 x 480 @ 30fps Significant disadvantages of the DSC-TX30 (vs the Slice) None found common strengths of the DSC-TX30 and Slice Each has a built-in flash Very large screens: 3.3" vs 3.5" Good image stabilization: Lens vs Lens
	Compare the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX30 vs the Kodak Slice
Sony Cyber-shot WX50 2 years newer $159	Significant advantages of the WX50 (vs the Slice) Much wider aperture: f/2.6 vs f/4.8 Much better wide angle: 25 mm vs 35 mm Higher resolution movies: 1080p @ 60fps vs 848 x 480 @ 30fps Significant disadvantages of the WX50 (vs the Slice) Much smaller screen: 2.7" vs 3.5" No touch screen common strengths of the WX50 and Slice Each has a built-in flash Good image stabilization: Lens vs Lens Thin: 0.7" vs 0.7"
	Compare the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX50 vs the Kodak Slice
Sony Cybershot DSC-TX55 1 year newer $318 - $329	Significant advantages of the DSC-TX55 (vs the Slice) Much wider aperture: f/3.5 vs f/4.8 Much better wide angle: 26 mm vs 35 mm Higher resolution movies: 1080p @ 30fps vs 848 x 480 @ 30fps Significant disadvantages of the DSC-TX55 (vs the Slice) None found common strengths of the DSC-TX55 and Slice Each has a built-in flash Very large screens: 3.3" vs 3.5" Good image stabilization: Lens vs Lens
	Compare the Sony Cybershot DSC-TX55 vs the Kodak Slice

Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak Slice compared to travel zoom competitors include: it has a significantly larger screen (3.5" vs 3.0"), is significantly smaller (super compact 104x60x17 mm vs compact 107x61x28 mm), has a touch screen, is thinner (0.7" vs 1.3") and is slightly lighter (158 g vs 231 g).

However, on average it has much less zoom (5x vs 20x), has a much narrower wide angle lens (35 mm vs 25 mm), has a much narrower aperture (f/4.8 vs f/3.3), doesn't have a built-in GPS and records lower quality movies (848 x 480 @ 30fps vs 1080p @ 24fps).

Samsung HZ30W similar age	Significant advantages of the HZ30W (vs the Slice) Much better wide angle: 24 mm vs 35 mm Much wider aperture: f/3.2 vs f/4.8 More zoom: 15x vs 5x Significant disadvantages of the HZ30W (vs the Slice) Much smaller screen: 3.0" vs 3.5" Significantly larger: Compact 107x61x28 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm No touch screen common strengths of the HZ30W and Slice None found
	Compare the Samsung HZ30W vs the Kodak Slice
Panasonic Lumix ZS25 3 years newer	Significant advantages of the ZS25 (vs the Slice) Much better wide angle: 24 mm vs 35 mm Much wider aperture: f/3.3 vs f/4.8 Much more zoom: 20x vs 5x Significant disadvantages of the ZS25 (vs the Slice) Much smaller screen: 3.0" vs 3.5" No touch screen Significantly larger: Compact 104x58x28 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm common strengths of the ZS25 and Slice None found
	Compare the Panasonic Lumix ZS25 vs the Kodak Slice
Canon PowerShot SX260 HS 2 years newer $200 - $300	Significant advantages of the SX260 HS (vs the Slice) Much better wide angle: 25 mm vs 35 mm Much wider aperture: f/3.5 vs f/4.8 Has a GPS Significant disadvantages of the SX260 HS (vs the Slice) Much larger: Compact 106x61x33 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm Much smaller screen: 3.0" vs 3.5" No touch screen common strengths of the SX260 HS and Slice None found
	Compare the Canon PowerShot SX260 HS vs the Kodak Slice
Canon ELPH 310 HS 1 year newer $179	Significant advantages of the 310 HS (vs the Slice) Much wider aperture: f/3.0 vs f/4.8 Much better wide angle: 28 mm vs 35 mm Supports 24p Significant disadvantages of the 310 HS (vs the Slice) Much smaller screen: 3.0" vs 3.5" No touch screen common strengths of the 310 HS and Slice Fairly small: Super compact 96x57x22 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm Thin: 0.9" vs 0.7" Light weight: 140 g vs 158 g
	Compare the Canon ELPH 310 HS vs the Kodak Slice
Panasonic Lumix ZS20 2 years newer $229 - $399	Significant advantages of the ZS20 (vs the Slice) Much better wide angle: 24 mm vs 35 mm Much wider aperture: f/3.3 vs f/4.8 Has a GPS Significant disadvantages of the ZS20 (vs the Slice) Much smaller screen: 3.0" vs 3.5" Significantly larger: Compact 105x59x28 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm Significantly thicker: 1.1" vs 0.7" common strengths of the ZS20 and Slice Have touch screens
	Compare the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20 vs the Kodak Slice
Canon PowerShot SX270 HS 3 years newer $184 - $213	Significant advantages of the SX270 HS (vs the Slice) Much better wide angle: 25 mm vs 35 mm Much wider aperture: f/3.5 vs f/4.8 Much more zoom: 20x vs 5x Significant disadvantages of the SX270 HS (vs the Slice) Much larger: Compact 106x63x33 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm Much smaller screen: 3.0" vs 3.5" No touch screen common strengths of the SX270 HS and Slice None found
	Compare the Canon PowerShot SX270 HS vs the Kodak Slice

Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak Slice compared to super zoom competitors include: it has a much larger screen (3.5" vs 3.0"), is significantly smaller (super compact 104x60x17 mm vs prosumer size 118x85x97 mm), has a touch screen, is thinner (0.7" vs 3.6") and is significantly lighter (158 g vs 550 g).

However, on average it has a much narrower aperture (f/4.8 vs f/3.0), has much less zoom (5x vs 41.7x), records lower quality movies (848 x 480 @ 30fps vs 1080p @ 30fps), has a much narrower wide angle lens (35 mm vs 23 mm) and doesn't have a screen which flips out.

Nikon Coolpix P520 3 years newer $320 - $377	Significant advantages of the P520 (vs the Slice) Much wider aperture: f/3.0 vs f/4.8 Much more zoom: 41.7x vs 5x Much better wide angle: 24 mm vs 35 mm Significant disadvantages of the P520 (vs the Slice) Much larger: Professional size 125x84x102 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm No touch screen Significantly smaller screen: 3.2" vs 3.5" common strengths of the P520 and Slice Larger than average screens: 3.2" vs 3.5"
	Compare the Nikon Coolpix P520 vs the Kodak Slice
Kodak PixPro AZ521 3 years newer	Significant advantages of the AZ521 (vs the Slice) Much wider aperture: f/2.9 vs f/4.8 Much more zoom: 52x vs 5x Much better wide angle: 24 mm vs 35 mm Significant disadvantages of the AZ521 (vs the Slice) Much smaller screen: 3.0" vs 3.5" Much larger: Prosumer size 118x85x97 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm No touch screen common strengths of the AZ521 and Slice None found
	Compare the PixPro AZ521 vs the Slice
Nikon Coolpix L830 4 years newer $267 - $300	Significant advantages of the L830 (vs the Slice) Much wider aperture: f/3.0 vs f/4.8 Much better wide angle: 22 mm vs 35 mm Higher resolution movies: 1080p @ 30fps vs 848 x 480 @ 30fps Significant disadvantages of the L830 (vs the Slice) Much smaller screen: 3.0" vs 3.5" No touch screen Significantly larger: Prosumer size 111x75x91 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm common strengths of the L830 and Slice Fairly small: Prosumer size 111x75x91 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm
	Compare the Nikon Coolpix L830 vs the Kodak Slice
Kodak EashShare Z5120 2 years newer	Significant advantages of the Z5120 (vs the Slice) Much wider aperture: f/3.1 vs f/4.8 Significantly better wide angle: 26 mm vs 35 mm Can create panoramas in-camera Significant disadvantages of the Z5120 (vs the Slice) Much smaller screen: 3.0" vs 3.5" No touch screen Significantly larger: Prosumer size 116x78x76 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm common strengths of the Z5120 and Slice Fairly small: Prosumer size 116x78x76 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm Thin: 3" vs 0.7"
	Compare the EashShare Z5120 vs the Slice
Nikon Coolpix L810 2 years newer $198	Significant advantages of the L810 (vs the Slice) Much wider aperture: f/3.1 vs f/4.8 Much better wide angle: 23 mm vs 35 mm Much better macro capability: 1 cm vs 10 cm Significant disadvantages of the L810 (vs the Slice) Much smaller screen: 3.0" vs 3.5" No touch screen Significantly larger: Prosumer size 111x76x83 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm common strengths of the L810 and Slice Fairly small: Prosumer size 111x76x83 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm Thin: 3.3" vs 0.7" Light weight: 430 g vs 158 g
	Compare the Nikon Coolpix L810 vs the Kodak Slice

Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak Slice compared to mirrorless interchangeable-lens competitors include: it has a significantly larger screen (3.5" vs 3.0"), is significantly smaller (super compact 104x60x17 mm vs standard size 123x71x55 mm), is thinner (0.7" vs 2.2") and is significantly lighter (158 g vs 402 g).

However, on average it records lower quality movies (848 x 480 @ 30fps vs 1080p @ 60fps), doesn't have a viewfinder (none vs digital), takes significantly lower resolution photos (9.7 MP vs 16 MP), much lower maximum light sensitivity (3,200 ISO vs 25,600 ISO) and doesn't record movies in 24p.

Panasonic GX7 3 years newer $745 - $809 (body only) $925 - $1,098 14-42mm lens	Significant advantages of the GX7 (vs the Slice) Higher resolution movies: 1080p @ 60fps vs 848 x 480 @ 30fps Shoots RAW Has a viewfinder: Digital vs None Significant disadvantages of the GX7 (vs the Slice) Significantly smaller screen: 3.0" vs 3.5" Significantly larger: Standard size 123x71x55 mm vs Super compact 104x60x17 mm Much thicker: 2.2" vs 0.7" common strengths of the GX7 and Slice Good image stabilization: Sensor shift vs Lens Have touch screens Each has a built-in flash
	Compare the Panasonic GX7 vs the Kodak Slice