As well as being compared against other compacts, the Kodak Slice is also often compared to travel zooms, entry-level DSLRs and ultra compacts. The Kodak Slice's top rivals come from Nikon (such as the Coolpix P340) and Kodak (such as the EasyShare Z915)
Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak Slice compared to other compact competitors include: it has a much larger screen (3.5" vs 1.8"), is slightly smaller (super compact (104×60×17 mm) vs compact (103×58×32 mm)), has better image stabilization (lens vs none), has a touch screen and is thinner (0.7" vs 1.3").
However, on average it has a much narrower aperture (f/4.8 vs f/1.8), records lower quality movies (848 x 480 @ 30fps vs 1080p @ 30fps), has a much narrower wide angle lens (35 mm vs 28 mm), doesn't record high-speed movies (none vs 240 fps) and has a CCD-family sensor (CCD vs CMOS).
Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak Slice compared to travel zoom competitors include: it has a much larger screen (3.5" vs 2.5"), is much smaller (super compact (104×60×17 mm) vs compact (90×64×39 mm)), has a touch screen, is newer (january 2010 vs january 2009) and is thinner (0.7" vs 1.5").
However, on average it has a significantly narrower aperture (f/4.8 vs f/3.5).
Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak Slice compared to entry-level DSLR competitors include: it has a much larger screen (3.5" vs 3"), has image stabilization (lens vs none), is much smaller (super compact (104×60×17 mm) vs professional size (133×100×79 mm)), is significantly less expensive ($199.99 vs $550.00) and is thinner (0.7" vs 3.1").
However, on average it records lower quality movies (848 x 480 @ 30fps vs 1080p @ 30fps), takes much lower resolution photos (9.7 MP vs 17.9 MP), doesn't record movies in 24p, doesn't shoot as fast continuously (3 fps vs 5 fps) and doesn't have a screen which flips out.
Generally, some of the advantages of the Kodak Slice compared to ultra compact competitors include: it has a much larger screen (3.5" vs 2.5"), has a touch screen, is newer (january 2010 vs february 2009) and has a faster max shutter speed (1/2000 of a second vs 1/1500 of a second).
However, on average it has a significantly narrower aperture (f/4.8 vs f/3.2), records lower quality movies (848 x 480 @ 30fps vs 720p @ 30fps), has a slightly narrower wide angle lens (35 mm vs 33 mm), doesn't have a viewfinder (none vs tunnel) and slightly shorter exposures (8 seconds vs 15 seconds).
