Kodak M341 vs Fujifilm XP120 Comparison

Camera to replace

Change

Kodak M341

12 MP | 1/2.33" (6.08 x 4.56 mm) CCD Sensor

CHECK PRICE

Change

Fujifilm XP120

16 MP | 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) BSI-CMOS Sensor

CHECK PRICE

Kodak M341 vs Fujifilm XP120 Comparison Overview

Here we are comparing two cameras with different body types: Kodak M341, which was introduced in July 2009 is a Ultracompact camera with a 12.0MP 1/2.3-inch sensor whereas Fujifilm XP120, which was introduced in January 2017 is a Waterproof camera with a 16.0MP 1/2.3-inch sensor. As you can see, M341 is 8 years older than XP120. Let's see if this age difference between two cameras makes a big difference.

Here is a brief look at the main features of Kodak M341 and Fujifilm XP120 before getting into our more detailed comparison.

Kodak M341 Key Specs

Announcement Date: 2009-07-29

12MP - 1/2.3-inch CCD Sensor

ISO 64 - 1600

35-175 mm F3.0-4.8 Zoom Lens

3" Fixed Type Screen

continuous shooting

- 640 x 480 video resolution

135g. 96 x 59 x 19 mm

Fujifilm XP120 Key Specs

Announcement Date: 2017-01-05

16MP - 1/2.3-inch BSI-CMOS Sensor

ISO 100 - 3200 ( expands to 6400)

28-140 mm F3.9-4.9 Zoom Lens

Sensor-shift Image Stabilization

3" Fixed Type Screen

10.0 fps continuous shooting

Full HD - 1920 x 1080 video resolution

Built-in Wireless

203g. 110 x 71 x 28 mm

Weather Sealed Body

Fujifilm XP120 was replaced by Fujifilm FinePix XP130. You may also be interested in these comparisons:
Fujifilm FinePix XP130 vs Fujifilm FinePix XP120
Fujifilm FinePix XP130 vs Kodak EasyShare M341

Let's read on the following sections in order to better understand in detail how Kodak M341 and Fujifilm XP120 compares and hopefully end up with enough arguments to decide which one is better for you.

Reasons to choose Kodak EasyShare M341 over Fujifilm FinePix XP120

Weight	135 g vs 203 g	68 g lighter
Focal Length - Tele	175mm vs 140mm	35 mm longer tele reach
Max Aperture - Wide	3.00 vs 3.90	faster lens at wide
Max Aperture - Tele	4.80 vs 4.90	faster lens at tele
Sensor Pixel Area	2.31µm² vs 1.76µm²	31% larger pixel area

Reasons to choose Fujifilm FinePix XP120 over Kodak EasyShare M341

Wireless Connection	Built-In vs None	Better connectivity
Image Stabilization	Sensor-shift vs None	Sharper images at longer focal lengths and long exposures
Face Detection Focus	Yes vs No	very handy for portraits
Max Sensor Resolution	16 MP vs 12 MP	33% more pixels
Max ISO	3.200 vs 1.600	100% higher Max ISO
LCD Screen Resolution	920k dots vs 230k dots	300% higher resolution screen
Max Mech. Shutter	1/2000s vs 1/1400s	faster mechanical shutter
Environmental Sealing	Yes vs No	shoot at tough conditions
Timelapse Recording	Yes vs No	creative shooting
Focal Length - Wide	28mm vs 35mm	7 mm wider coverage
Flash Coverage	4.4m vs 3.2m	1.2m longer range
Max Video Resolution	1920 x 1080 vs 640 x 480	Higher Resolution Video
Smartphone Remote	Yes vs No	Remote control your camera with a smartphone

Common Strengths of Kodak EasyShare M341 and Fujifilm FinePix XP120

Built-in Flash	Yes vs Yes	Useful in low-light
Continuous Shooting	fps vs 10.0fps	Fast shooting speeds

Common Weaknesses of Kodak EasyShare M341 and Fujifilm FinePix XP120

Fixed Screen	Fixed Type vs No	No flexible viewing angles
External Flash Shoe	No vs No	Not suitable for flash photography
Viewfinder	None vs None	No eye-level shooting option
RAW Support	No vs No	Lower image quality
Manual Exposure	No vs No	No manual exposure control

Kodak M341 vs Fujifilm XP120: Physical Specs and Body features Comparison

Size and weight is a big decision factor when you are trying to find the ideal camera for your needs. In this section, We are going to illustrate Kodak M341 and Fujifilm XP120 side-by-side from the front, back and top in their relative dimensions. Kodak M341 has external dimensions of 96 x 59 x 19 mm (3.78 x 2.32 x 0.75″) and weighs 135 g (0.30 lb / 4.76 oz) (including batteries). Fujifilm XP120 has external dimensions of 110 x 71 x 28 mm (4.33 x 2.8 x 1.1″) and weighs 203 g (0.45 lb / 7.16 oz) (including batteries).

Below you can see the front view size comparison of Kodak M341 and Fujifilm XP120. Kodak M341 is clearly the smaller of the two cameras. Its body is 14mm narrower, 12mm shorter and 9mm thinner than Fujifilm XP120.

Comparison image of Kodak M341 and Fujifilm XP120 Size, Weight and External Dimensions - Front View

Weight is another important factor especially when deciding on a camera that you want to carry with you all day. Kodak M341 is significantly lighter (68g ) than the Fujifilm XP120 which may become a big advantage especially on long walking trips.

Weight Comparison

Waterproof Cameras

M341

XP120

Min

Average

Max

Thickness Comparison

Waterproof Cameras

M341

XP120

Min

Average

Max

Weather Sealing

LCD Screen Size and Features

Kodak M341 and Fujifilm XP120's LCD screens has the same diagonal size of 3".

Unfortunately, both cameras has fixed screens so they don't tilt or flip in directions.

Kodak M341 vs Fujifilm XP120: Sensor Comparison

Kodak M341 has a 12.0MP 1/2.3-inch (6.08 x 4.56 mm ) sized CCD sensor . On the other hand, Fujifilm XP120 has a 16.0MP 1/2.3-inch (6.17 x 4.55 mm ) sized BSI-CMOS sensor .

Below you can see the M341 and XP120 sensor size comparison.

Sensor Size and Resolution Comparison image of Kodak M341 and Fujifilm XP120 Cameras

Kodak M341 and Fujifilm XP120 have almost the same sensor size so none of them has any significant advantage over other in providing control over depth of field when used with same focal length and aperture.

Kodak M341 vs Fujifilm XP120 Lens Specs Comparison

Kodak M341 features a 35-175 mm F3.0-4.8 5× zoom lens whereas Fujifilm XP120 features a 28-140 mm F3.9-4.9 5x zoom lens.

Fujifilm XP120 has 7mm wider coverage than the Kodak M341. On the other hand, with a max aperture of f3.00, Kodak M341 is faster at widest end. On the tele end, Kodak M341 has 35mm longer reach than the Fujifilm XP120. At f4.80, it is also faster at tele end.

Wide Coverage

Compact Cameras

M341

XP120

Widest - Ricoh WG-M1

Average

Telezoom

Compact Cameras

M341

XP120

Longest - Canon SX520 HS

Average

Max Aperture at Tele

Compact Cameras

M341

XP120

Fastest - Ricoh GR Digital IV

Average

Max Aperture at Wide

Compact Cameras

M341

XP120

Fastest - Leica D-Lux 6

Average

What types of Photography are Kodak M341 and Fujifilm XP120 Good for?

In this section, we rank and compare Kodak M341 and Fujifilm XP120 for five different photography types in order to make your decision process easier in case you are specifically interested in one or more of these areas.

Kodak M341 for Portrait Photography

POOR

Fujifilm XP120 for Portrait Photography

POOR

Average Resolution Sensor: 12.0MP
Small 1/2.33" (6.08 x 4.56 mm) sensor
No Image Stabilization
No RAW shooting capability
No External Flash Shoe
No Built-in Viewfinder
No Manual Focus Mode
No Manual Exposure Mode
Not so good Ergonomics&Handling
Read the details

Image Stabilization
Manual Focus Mode
Average Resolution Sensor: 16.0MP
Small 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor
No RAW shooting capability
No External Flash Shoe
No Built-in Viewfinder
No Manual Exposure Mode
Not so good Ergonomics&Handling
Read the details

Kodak M341 for Street Photography

POOR

Fujifilm XP120 for Street Photography

GOOD

Small Body
Live-view
Small 1/2.33" (6.08 x 4.56 mm) sensor
No Image Stabilization
No RAW shooting capability
No Built-in Viewfinder
No Manual Focus Mode
35 mm - Poor Wide Angle Coverage
Read the details

Image Stabilization
Manual Focus Mode
Small Body
Live-view
Face-Detection Focusing
28 mm - Good Wide Angle Coverage
Small 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor
No RAW shooting capability
No Built-in Viewfinder
Slow Lens at Wide: f3.90
Read the details

Kodak M341 for Sports Photography

POOR

Fujifilm XP120 for Sports Photography

POOR

175 mm Tele Lens
No Image Stabilization
No RAW shooting capability
No External Flash Shoe
No Built-in Viewfinder
No Manual Focus Mode
No Manual Exposure Mode
Not so good Ergonomics&Handling
Environmental Sealings
Slow Max shutter speed: 1/1400s
Focus Points
Read the details

Image Stabilization
Manual Focus Mode
Fast Continuous Shooting: 10.0fps
Environmental Sealings
Wireless Connection
Average Max shutter speed: 1/2000s
140 mm Tele Lens
No RAW shooting capability
No External Flash Shoe
No Built-in Viewfinder
No Manual Exposure Mode
Not so good Ergonomics&Handling
Focus Points
Poor Battery Life: 210 shots
Read the details

Kodak M341 for Daily Photography

AVERAGE

Fujifilm XP120 for Daily Photography

AVERAGE

Compact Body
135g
Body Thickness 19mm
5.0X Optical Zoom
Small 1/2.33" (6.08 x 4.56 mm) sensor
No RAW shooting capability
Read the details

Compact Body
203g
Environmental Sealings
5.0X Optical Zoom
Small 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor
No RAW shooting capability
Read the details

Kodak M341 for Landscape Photography

POOR

Fujifilm XP120 for Landscape Photography

POOR

Average Resolution Sensor: 12.0MP
Small 1/2.33" (6.08 x 4.56 mm) sensor
No RAW shooting capability
No Manual Focus Mode
No Manual Exposure Mode
35 mm - Poor Wide Angle Coverage
No Environmental Sealings
Read the details

Manual Focus Mode
Environmental Sealings
28 mm - Good Wide Angle Coverage
Average Resolution Sensor: 16.0MP
Small 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor
No RAW shooting capability
No Manual Exposure Mode
Read the details

Kodak M341 vs Fujifilm XP120: OUR DECISION

You may have already made your decision about which camera suits better for your needs and your budget so far but in case you wonder how we rated Kodak M341 and Fujifilm XP120, below you can find their scores in five different aspects. Our Decision Algorithm dynamically scores cameras using 63 different specs, current price and DxO Mark scores (where possible) in order to make a more objective and consistent comparison.

Here is a summary of how Kodak M341 and Fujifilm XP120 scores compare:

Kodak M341

Imaging

Features

Value

Portability

Overall

Ranked #133 out of 155 in Ultracompact cameras
Ranked #1173 out of 1226 in all Cameras

Fujifilm XP120

Imaging

Features

Value

Portability

Overall

Ranked #7 out of 155 in Ultracompact cameras
Ranked #581 out of 1226 in all Cameras

Fujifilm XP120 is the overall winner of this comparison. It has a higher Overall Score and beats Kodak M341 in all criteria except one: Portability.
If small size and light body is a big priority for you, choose Kodak M341. Otherwise, Fujifilm XP120 is the better camera overall.

Fujifilm XP120 vs Kodak M341 Specs Table

Detailed comparison of specifications

General	Kodak EasyShare M341	Fujifilm FinePix XP120
Brand	Kodak	Fujifilm
Announced	2009-07-29	2017-01-05
Body Type	Ultracompact	Ultracompact
Sensor
Type	CCD	BSI-CMOS
Size	1/2.3-inch	1/2.3-inch
Dimensions	6.08 x 4.56 mm	6.17 x 4.55 mm
Area	27.72mm²	28.07mm²
Megapixels	12 megapixels	16 megapixels
Max Resolution	4000 x 3000	4608 x 3456
Max Native Light sensitivity	1,600 ISO	3,200 ISO
Max Boosted Light Sensitivity	-	6400 ISO
Min Native Light sensitivity	64 ISO	100 ISO
RAW Support
Autofocus
AF Touch
AF Continuous
AF Single
AF Tracking
AF Selective
AF Center
AF Multi Area
AF Live View
AF Face Detection
AF Contrast Detection
AF Phase Detection
Number of Focus Points	n/a	n/a
Lens
Manual Focus
Lens Mount	fixed lens	fixed lens
Lens Focal Range	35-175 mm (5×)	28-140 mm (5x)
Max Aperture	F3.0-4.8	F3.9-4.9
Macro Focus Range	10cm	9cm
Screen
Type	Fixed type	Fixed type
Size	3"	3"
Resolution	230k dots	920k dots
Touch Screen
Viewfinder
Viewfinder	None	None
Photography Features
Max Mechanical Shutter	1/1400s	1/2000s
Shutter Priority
Aperture Priority
Manual Exposure Mode
Custom White Balance
Image Stabilization	No	Sensor-shift
Built-in Flash
Flash Range	3.20 m	4.40 m (at Auto ISO)
External Flash
Continuous Shooting	n/a	10.0 fps
Multi-Segment
Average
Spot
Partial
AF-Area
Center Weighted
AE Bracketing
WB Bracketing
Video Features
Max Video Resolution	640 x 480	1920 x 1080
Video Formats	Motion JPEG	H.264
Microphone Port
Headphone Port
Connectivity
Wireless Connectivity	None	Built-In
HDMI
Physical
Environmental Sealing
Weight	135g	203g
Dimensions	96 x 59 x 19mm	110 x 71 x 28mm
Battery Life	n/a	210 shots
Other Features
Timelapse Recording
GPS	None	None
DxO Sensor Scores
	Report a correction	Report a correction