Canon 200D vs Kodak AZ901
The Canon EOS 200D (called Canon SL2 in some regions) and the Kodak PixPro AZ901 are two digital cameras that were announced, respectively, in June 2017 and January 2016. The 200D is a DSLR, while the AZ901 is a fixed lens compact. The cameras are based on an APS-C (200D) and a 1/2.3-inch (AZ901) sensor. The Canon has a resolution of 24 megapixels, whereas the Kodak provides 20.2 MP. Read on to find out how these two cameras compare with respect to their body size, their sensors, their features, their input-output connections, and their reception by expert reviewers.
|Canon 200D||Kodak AZ901|
|Digital single lens reflex||Fixed lens compact camera|
|Canon EF mount lenses||22-1980mm f/3.1-6.8|
|24 MP, APS-C Sensor||20.2 MP, 1/2.3" Sensor|
|1080/60p Video||1080/30p Video|
|ISO 100-25600 (100-51200)||ISO 100-3200|
|Optical viewfinder||Electronic viewfinder (202k dots)|
|3.0" LCD, 1040k dots||3.0" LCD, 920k dots|
|Swivel touchscreen||Swivel screen (not touch-sensitive)|
|5 shutter flaps per second||5 shutter flaps per second|
|650 shots per battery charge||400 shots per battery charge|
|122 x 93 x 70 mm, 453 g||139 x 104 x 119 mm, 777 g|
Body comparison: Canon 200D vs Kodak AZ901
The physical size and weight of the Canon 200D and the Kodak AZ901 are illustrated in the side-by-side display below. The two cameras are presented according to their relative size. Three consecutive views from the front, the top, and the rear side are shown. All width, height and depth measures are rounded to the nearest millimeter. You can also toggle the display to switch to a percentage comparison if you prefer that the measures are being expressed in relative terms (in this case, the camera on the left – the 200D – represents the basis or 100 percent across all the size and weight measures).
If the front view area (width x height) of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Kodak AZ901 is notably larger (27 percent) than the Canon 200D. In this context, it is worth noting that neither the 200D nor the AZ901 are weather-sealed.
The above size and weight comparisons are to some extent incomplete and possibly misleading, as the AZ901 has a lens built in, whereas the 200D is an interchangeable lens camera that requires a separate lens. Attaching the latter will add extra weight and bulk to the setup. You can compare the optics available for the 200D and their specifications in the Canon EF Lens Catalog.
The adjacent table lists the principal physical characteristics of the two cameras alongside a wider set of alternatives. If you want to switch the focus of the display and review another camera pair, just select a new right or left comparator from among the camera models in the table. Alternatively, you can also move across to the CAM-parator tool and choose from the broad selection of possible camera comparisons there.
|Canon 200D»||4.8 in||3.7 in||2.8 in||16.0 oz||650||n||Jun 2017||549||Canon 200D|
|Kodak AZ901«||5.5 in||4.1 in||4.7 in||27.4 oz||400||n||Jan 2016||499||Kodak AZ901|
|Canon 2000D« »||5.1 in||4.0 in||3.1 in||16.8 oz||500||n||Feb 2018||449||Canon 2000D|
|Canon 77D« »||5.2 in||3.9 in||3.0 in||19.0 oz||600||n||Feb 2017||899||Canon 77D|
|Canon 800D« »||5.2 in||3.9 in||3.0 in||18.8 oz||600||n||Feb 2017||749||Canon 800D|
|Canon G9 X Mark II« »||3.9 in||2.3 in||1.2 in||7.3 oz||235||n||Jan 2017||529||Canon G9 X Mark II|
|Canon M6« »||4.4 in||2.7 in||1.8 in||13.8 oz||295||n||Feb 2017||779||Canon M6|
|Canon M100« »||4.3 in||2.6 in||1.4 in||10.7 oz||295||n||Aug 2017||499||Canon M100|
|Canon M5« »||4.6 in||3.5 in||2.4 in||15.1 oz||295||n||Sep 2016||979||Canon M5|
|Canon G9 X« »||3.9 in||2.3 in||1.2 in||7.4 oz||220||n||Oct 2015||529||-||Canon G9 X|
|Canon 100D« »||4.6 in||3.6 in||2.7 in||14.4 oz||380||n||Mar 2013||549||-||Canon 100D|
|Leica Q Typ 116« »||5.1 in||3.1 in||3.7 in||22.6 oz||300||n||Jun 2015||4,249||Leica Q Typ 116|
|Nikon D5600« »||4.9 in||3.8 in||2.8 in||16.4 oz||970||n||Nov 2016||699||Nikon D5600|
|Nikon D3400« »||4.9 in||3.9 in||3.0 in||15.7 oz||1200||n||Aug 2016||499||-||Nikon D3400|
|Nikon P900« »||5.5 in||4.1 in||5.4 in||31.7 oz||360||n||Mar 2015||599||-||Nikon P900|
|Panasonic FZ2500« »||5.4 in||4.0 in||5.3 in||32.3 oz||350||n||Sep 2016||1,199||Panasonic FZ2500|
The price is, of course, an important factor in any camera decision. The manufacturer’s suggested retail prices give an idea on the placement of the camera in the maker’s lineup and the broader market. The AZ901 was launched at a lower price than the 200D, despite having a lens built in. Normally, street prices remain initially close to the MSRP, but after a couple of months, the first discounts appear. Later in the product cycle and, in particular, when the replacement model is about to appear, further discounting and stock clearance sales often push the camera price considerably down. Then, after the new model is out, very good deals can frequently be found on the pre-owned market.
Sensor comparison: Canon 200D vs Kodak AZ901
The size of the sensor inside a digital camera is one of the key determinants of image quality. All other things equal, a large sensor will have larger individual pixel-units that offer better low-light sensitivity, wider dynamic range, and richer color-depth than smaller pixels in a sensor of the same technological generation. Further, a large sensor camera will give the photographer additional creative options when using shallow depth-of-field to isolate a subject from its background. On the downside, larger sensors tend to be associated with larger, more expensive camera bodies and lenses.
Of the two cameras under consideration, the Canon 200D features an APS-C sensor and the Kodak AZ901 a 1/2.3-inch sensor. The sensor area in the AZ901 is 92 percent smaller. As a result of these sensor size differences, the cameras have a format factor of, respectively, 1.6 and 5.6. The sensor in the 200D has a native 3:2 aspect ratio, while the one in the AZ901 offers a 4:3 aspect.
With 24MP, the 200D offers a higher resolution than the AZ901 (20.2MP), but the 200D nevertheless has larger individual pixels (pixel pitch of 3.72μm versus 1.18μm for the AZ901) due to its larger sensor. Moreover, the 200D is a somewhat more recent model (by 1 year and 5 months) than the AZ901, and its sensor might have benefitted from technological advances during this time that further enhance the light gathering capacity of its pixels.
The 200D has on-sensor phase detect pixels, which results in fast and reliable autofocus acquisition even during video recording.
The Canon EOS 200D has a native sensitivity range from ISO 100 to ISO 25600, which can be extended to ISO 100-51200. The corresponding ISO settings for the Kodak PixPro AZ901 are ISO 100 to ISO 3200 (no boost).
Since 2007, DXO Mark has published sensor performance measurements that have been derived using a consistent methodology. This service is based on lab testing and assigns an overall score to each camera sensor, as well as ratings for dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), color depth ("DXO Portrait"), and low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports"). The adjacent table reports on the physical sensor characteristics and the outcomes of the DXO sensor quality tests for a sample of comparator-cameras.
|Canon 200D»||APS-C||24.0||6000||4000||1080/60p||23.6||13.4||1041||79||Canon 200D|
|Kodak AZ901«||1/2.3||20.2||5184||3888||1080/30p||-||-||-||-||Kodak AZ901|
|Canon 2000D« »||APS-C||24.0||6000||4000||1080/30p||22.6||11.9||1009||71||Canon 2000D|
|Canon 77D« »||APS-C||24.0||6000||4000||1080/60p||23.6||13.3||971||78||Canon 77D|
|Canon 800D« »||APS-C||24.0||6000||4000||1080/60p||-||-||-||-||Canon 800D|
|Canon G9 X Mark II« »||1-inch||20.0||5472||3648||1080/60p||21.9||12.5||522||65||Canon G9 X Mark II|
|Canon M6« »||APS-C||24.0||6000||4000||1080/60p||-||-||-||-||Canon M6|
|Canon M100« »||APS-C||24.0||6000||4000||1080/60p||23.5||12.9||1272||78||Canon M100|
|Canon M5« »||APS-C||24.0||6000||4000||1080/60p||23.4||12.4||1262||77||Canon M5|
|Canon G9 X« »||1-inch||20.0||5472||3648||1080/60p||21.5||12.3||495||63||Canon G9 X|
|Canon 100D« »||APS-C||17.9||5184||3456||1080/30p||21.8||11.3||843||63||Canon 100D|
|Leica Q Typ 116« »||Full Frame||24.0||6000||4000||1080/60p||24.3||12.7||2221||85||Leica Q Typ 116|
|Nikon D5600« »||APS-C||24.0||6000||4000||1080/60p||24.1||14.0||1306||84||Nikon D5600|
|Nikon D3400« »||APS-C||24.0||6000||4000||1080/60p||24.8||13.9||1192||86||Nikon D3400|
|Nikon P900« »||1/2.3||15.9||4608||3456||1080/60p||-||-||-||-||Nikon P900|
|Panasonic FZ2500« »||1-inch||20.0||5472||3648||4K/30p||-||-||-||-||Panasonic FZ2500|
Many modern cameras cannot only take still pictures, but also record videos. Both cameras under consideration are equipped with sensors that have a sufficiently high read-out speed for moving images, but the 200D provides a higher frame rate than the AZ901. It can shoot video footage at 1080/60p, while the Kodak is limited to 1080/30p.
Feature comparison: Canon 200D vs Kodak AZ901
Apart from body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a variety of features. For example, the AZ901 has an electronic viewfinder (202k dots), while the 200D has an optical one. Both systems have their advantages, with the electronic viewfinder making it possible to project supplementary shooting information into the framing view, whereas the optical viewfinder offers lag-free viewing and a very clear framing image. The table below summarizes some of the other core capabilities of the Canon 200D and Kodak AZ901 in connection with corresponding information for a sample of similar cameras.
|Canon 200D»||optical||n||3.0||1040||swivel||Y||4000||5.0||Y||n||Canon 200D|
|Kodak AZ901«||202||n||3.0||920||swivel||n||2000||5.0||Y||Y||Kodak AZ901|
|Canon 2000D« »||optical||n||3.0||920||fixed||n||4000||3.0||Y||n||Canon 2000D|
|Canon 77D« »||optical||Y||3.0||1040||swivel||Y||4000||6.0||Y||n||Canon 77D|
|Canon 800D« »||optical||n||3.0||1040||swivel||Y||4000||6.0||Y||n||Canon 800D|
|Canon G9 X Mark II« »||-||n||3.0||1040||fixed||Y||2000||8.2||Y||Y||Canon G9 X Mark II|
|Canon M6« »||-||n||3.0||1040||tilting||Y||4000||9.0||Y||n||Canon M6|
|Canon M100« »||-||n||3.0||1040||tilting||Y||4000||6.1||Y||n||Canon M100|
|Canon M5« »||2360||n||3.2||1620||tilting||Y||4000||9.0||Y||n||Canon M5|
|Canon G9 X« »||-||n||3.0||1040||fixed||Y||2000||6.0||Y||Y||Canon G9 X|
|Canon 100D« »||optical||n||3.0||1040||fixed||Y||4000||4.9||Y||n||Canon 100D|
|Leica Q Typ 116« »||3680||n||3.0||1040||fixed||Y||2000||10.0||n||n||Leica Q Typ 116|
|Nikon D5600« »||optical||n||3.2||1037||swivel||Y||4000||5.0||Y||n||Nikon D5600|
|Nikon D3400« »||optical||n||3.0||921||fixed||n||4000||5.0||Y||n||Nikon D3400|
|Nikon P900« »||921||n||3.0||921||swivel||n||4000||7.0||Y||Y||Nikon P900|
|Panasonic FZ2500« »||2360||n||3.0||1040||swivel||Y||4000||12.0||Y||Y||Panasonic FZ2500|
One differentiating feature between the two cameras concerns the touch sensitivity of the rear screen. The 200D has a touchscreen, while the AZ901 has a conventional panel. Touch control can be particularly helpful, for example, for setting the focus point.Both cameras have an articulated rear screen that can be turned to be front-facing. This feature will be particularly appreciated by vloggers and photographers who are interested in taking selfies.
Concerning the storage of imaging data, both the 200D and the AZ901 write their files to SDXC cards.
Connectivity comparison: Canon 200D vs Kodak AZ901
For some imaging applications, the extent to which a camera can communicate with its environment can be an important aspect in the camera decision process. The table below provides an overview of the connectivity of the Canon EOS 200D and Kodak PixPro AZ901 and, in particular, the interfaces the cameras (and selected comparators) provide for accessory control and data transfer.
|Canon 200D»||Y||stereo||mono||Y||-||mini||2.0||Y||Y||Y||Canon 200D|
|Kodak AZ901«||-||stereo||mono||-||-||micro||2.0||Y||-||-||Kodak AZ901|
|Canon 2000D« »||Y||mono||mono||-||-||mini||2.0||Y||Y||-||Canon 2000D|
|Canon 77D« »||Y||stereo||mono||Y||-||mini||2.0||Y||Y||Y||Canon 77D|
|Canon 800D« »||Y||stereo||mono||Y||-||mini||2.0||Y||Y||Y||Canon 800D|
|Canon G9 X Mark II« »||-||stereo||mono||-||-||micro||2.0||Y||Y||Y||Canon G9 X Mark II|
|Canon M6« »||Y||stereo||mono||Y||-||mini||2.0||Y||Y||Y||Canon M6|
|Canon M100« »||-||stereo||mono||-||-||mini||2.0||Y||Y||Y||Canon M100|
|Canon M5« »||Y||stereo||mono||Y||-||mini||2.0||Y||Y||Y||Canon M5|
|Canon G9 X« »||-||stereo||mono||-||-||micro||2.0||Y||Y||-||Canon G9 X|
|Canon 100D« »||Y||mono||mono||Y||-||mini||2.0||-||-||-||Canon 100D|
|Leica Q Typ 116« »||Y||stereo||mono||-||-||micro||2.0||Y||Y||-||Leica Q Typ 116|
|Nikon D5600« »||Y||stereo||mono||Y||-||mini||2.0||Y||Y||Y||Nikon D5600|
|Nikon D3400« »||Y||mono||mono||-||-||mini||2.0||Y||-||Y||Nikon D3400|
|Nikon P900« »||-||stereo||mono||-||-||micro||2.0||Y||Y||-||Nikon P900|
|Panasonic FZ2500« »||Y||stereo||mono||Y||Y||micro||2.0||Y||-||-||Panasonic FZ2500|
It is notable that the 200D has a hotshoe, while the AZ901 does not. This socket makes it possible to easily attach optional accessories, such as an external flash gun.
Both the 200D and the AZ901 are recent models that feature in their makers' current product line-up. The AZ901 replaced the earlier Kodak AZ651, while the 200D followed on from the Canon 100D.
Review summary: Canon 200D vs Kodak AZ901
So what conclusions can be drawn? Which of the two cameras – the Canon 200D or the Kodak AZ901 – has the upper hand? A synthesis of the relative strong points of each of the models is listed below.
Reasons to prefer the Canon EOS 200D:
- More detail: Offers more megapixels (24 vs 20.2MP) with a 11% higher linear resolution.
- Better image quality: Features a larger and more technologically advanced imaging sensor.
- Richer colors: Larger sensor generates images with better, more accurate colors.
- More dynamic range: Capable of capturing a wider spectrum of light and dark details.
- Better low-light sensitivity: Can be used in poorly lit environments and still produce good images.
- Better video: Provides higher movie framerates (1080/60p versus 1080/30p).
- Better video autofocus: Features on-sensor phase-detection for more confident movie autofocus.
- Better sound: Can connect to an external microphone for higher quality sound recording.
- Brighter framing: Features an optical viewfinder for clear, lag-free composition.
- More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (1040k vs 920k dots).
- Fewer buttons to press: Is equipped with a touch-sensitive rear screen to facilitate handling.
- Faster shutter: Has higher mechanical shutter speed (4000/sec vs 2000/sec) to freeze action.
- More flexible: Can take a variety of interchangeable lenses, including specialty optics.
- More compact: Is smaller (122x93mm vs 139x104mm) and thus needs less room in the bag.
- Longer lasting: Can take more shots (650 versus 400) on a single battery charge.
- Better lighting: Features a hotshoe and can thus hold and trigger an external flash gun.
- Easier device pairing: Supports NFC for fast wireless image transfer over short distances.
- Easier wireless transfer: Supports Bluetooth for image sharing without cables.
- More modern: Is somewhat more recent (announced 1 year and 5 months after the AZ901).
Advantages of the Kodak PixPro AZ901:
- More framing info: Has an electronic viewfinder that displays shooting data.
- Ready to shoot: Comes with an integrated lens, while the 200D requires a separate lens.
- Sharper images: Has stabilization technology built-in to reduce the impact of hand-shake.
- More affordable: Was introduced at a lower price, despite coming with a built-in lens.
- More heavily discounted: Has been on the market for longer (launched in January 2016).
If the count of relative strengths (bullet points above) is taken as a measure, the 200D is the clear winner of the match-up (19 : 5 points). However, the pertinence of the various camera strengths will differ across photographers, so that you might want to weigh individual camera traits according to their importance for your own imaging needs before making a camera decision.
In any case, while the comparison of technical specifications can provide a useful overview of the capabilities of different cameras, it remains partial and cannot reveal, for example, the handling experience and imaging performance when actually working with the 200D or the AZ901. User reviews, such as those found at amazon, can sometimes inform about these issues, but such feedback is often incomplete, inconsistent, and biased.
Expert reviews: Canon 200D vs Kodak AZ901
This is where reviews by experts come in. The table below summarizes the assessments of some of the best known camera review sites (cameralabs, dpreview, ephotozine, imaging-resource, photographyblog). The detailed reviews can be accessed by clicking on the site logo in the table header.
|Canon 200D»||HiRec||78/100||4.5/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||Jun 2017||549||Canon 200D|
|Kodak AZ901«||-||-||3.5/5||-||3/5||Jan 2016||499||Kodak AZ901|
|Canon 2000D« »||rev||-||3.5/5||-||3.5/5||Feb 2018||449||Canon 2000D|
|Canon 77D« »||-||82/100||4.5/5||4.5/5||4/5||Feb 2017||899||Canon 77D|
|Canon 800D« »||-||80/100||4.5/5||4/5||4/5||Feb 2017||749||Canon 800D|
|Canon G9 X Mark II« »||-||75/100||4.5/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||Jan 2017||529||Canon G9 X Mark II|
|Canon M6« »||-||80/100||4/5||4.5/5||4/5||Feb 2017||779||Canon M6|
|Canon M100« »||Rec||-||4/5||-||3.5/5||Aug 2017||499||Canon M100|
|Canon M5« »||Rec||82/100||4/5||4.5/5||4/5||Sep 2016||979||Canon M5|
|Canon G9 X« »||HiRec||-||4.5/5||4/5||4.5/5||Oct 2015||529||-||Canon G9 X|
|Canon 100D« »||Rec||78/100||4/5||4/5||4/5||Mar 2013||549||-||Canon 100D|
|Leica Q Typ 116« »||-||80/100||4.5/5||-||4.5/5||Jun 2015||4,249||Leica Q Typ 116|
|Nikon D5600« »||-||79/100||4.5/5||4.5/5||4/5||Nov 2016||699||Nikon D5600|
|Nikon D3400« »||Rec||76/100||4/5||4.5/5||4.5/5||Aug 2016||499||-||Nikon D3400|
|Nikon P900« »||-||77/100||4/5||4.5/5||4/5||Mar 2015||599||-||Nikon P900|
|Panasonic FZ2500« »||Rec||82/100||4.5/5||4.5/5||5/5||Sep 2016||1,199||Panasonic FZ2500|
The above review scores should be interpreted with care, though. The ratings are only valid when referring to cameras in the same category and of the same age. Thus, a score needs to be put into the context of the launch date and the launch price of the camera, and rating-comparisons among cameras that span long time periods or concern very differently equipped models make little sense. Also, kindly note that some of the listed sites have over time developped their review approaches and their reporting style.
Other camera comparisons
Did this review help to inform your camera decision process? In case you are interested in seeing how other cameras pair up, just make your choice using the following search menu. Alternatively, you can follow any of the listed hyperlinks for comparisons that others found interesting.
- Canon 1D X vs Canon 2000D
- Canon 5D Mark IV vs Canon SL1
- Fujifilm X-A5 vs Leica TL
- Nikon A1000 vs Panasonic TZ100
- Nikon D300 vs Panasonic GX85
- Nikon D7100 vs Panasonic GH5s
- Nikon D7200 vs Nikon D5300
- Olympus E-M5 II vs Panasonic GM5
- Panasonic FZ100 vs Canon G1 X Mark III
- Panasonic GH5 vs Canon 5DS
- Panasonic GX9 vs Panasonic GX80
- Sony A7R II vs Sony A6000
Specifications: Canon 200D vs Kodak AZ901
|Camera Model||Canon 200D||Kodak AZ901|
|Camera Type||Digital single lens reflex||Fixed lens compact camera|
|Camera Lens||Canon EF mount lenses||22-1980mm f/3.1-6.8|
|Launch Date||June 2017||January 2016|
|Launch Price||USD 549||USD 499|
|Sensor Format||APS-C Sensor||1/2.3" Sensor|
|Sensor Size||22.3 x 14.9 mm||6.17 x 14.9 mm|
|Sensor Area||332.27 mm2||28.0735 mm2|
|Sensor Diagonal||26.8 mm||7.7 mm|
|Sensor Resolution||24 Megapixels||20.2 Megapixels|
|Image Resolution||6000 x 4000 pixels||5184 x 3888 pixels|
|Pixel Pitch||3.72 μm||1.18 μm|
|Pixel Density||7.22 MP/cm2||71.80 MP/cm2|
|Movie Capability||1080/60p Video||1080/30p Video|
|ISO Setting||100-25600 ISO||100-3200 ISO|
|ISO Boost||100-51200 ISO||no Enhancement|
|Viewfinder Type||Optical viewfinder||Electronic viewfinder|
|Viewfinder Resolution||n/a||202k dots|
|Rear LCD Size||3.0 inch||3.0 inch|
|LCD Resolution||1040k dots||920k dots|
|LCD Attachment||Swivel screen||Swivel screen|
|Touch Input||Touchscreen||no Touchscreen|
|Maximum Shutter Speed||1/4000s||1/2000s|
|Continuous Shooting||5 shutter flaps/s||5 shutter flaps/s|
|Fill Flash||Build-in Flash||Build-in Flash|
|Storage Medium||SDXC cards||SDXC cards|
|USB Connector||USB 2.0||USB 2.0|
|HDMI Port||mini HDMI||micro HDMI|
|Microphone Port||External MIC port||no MIC socket|
|Wifi Support||Wifi built-in||Wifi built-in|
|Near-Field Communication||NFC built-in||no NFC|
|Bluetooth Support||Bluetooth built-in||no Bluetooth|
|Battery Type||LP-E17 power pack||LB-070 power pack|
|Battery Life (CIPA)||650 shots per charge||400 shots per charge|
122 x 93 x 70 mm
(4.8 x 3.7 x 2.8 in)
139 x 104 x 119 mm
(5.5 x 4.1 x 4.7 in)
|Camera Weight||453 g (16.0 oz)||777 g (27.4 oz)|
Did you notice an error on this page? If so, please get in touch, so that we can correct the information.