Notebookcheck

Kodak Ektra Smartphone Review

Florian Wimmer, Sven Kloevekorn (translated by Katarina Novak), 01/27/2017

The camera-smartphone? The Kodak Ektra carries a big name and accordingly wants to pocket the prize for the best smartphone camera. Read on to find out if it does, and whether this smartphone could be something for you.

For the original German review, see here.

Kodak used to be one of the big names in the photography industry. But the Americans missed the digitalization, and their decline followed, including temporary insolvency. By now, the company has primarily specialized in the production of professional printers, but the name Kodak still has a ring among photographers. It is thus no surprise that the first Kodak smartphone, the Kodak Ektra, especially wants to excel at photography.

With a recommended price of 499 Euros ($539), the smartphone is positioned in the upper mid-range segment, where there is plenty of competition, since older high-end smartphones quickly become more affordable and then enter this price range. Among the comparable devices is the Huawei P9 , also bearing an illustrious camera name due to its cooperation with Leica. The OnePlus 3T is the darling of all penny pinchers, because it offers high-end features at an affordable price. The Asus ZenFone 3 shines because of a particularly stylish design, and the LG V10 has a second screen above the main display. Currently, all of these cost even less than the Kodak. Let us see if the additional cost is justified for photography fans.

Kodak Ektra
Graphics adapter
Memory
3072 MB 
Display
5 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 441 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, IPS, Gorilla Glass, glossy: yes
Storage
32 GB eMMC Flash, 32 GB 
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm headset jack, Card Reader: microSD slot up to 128 GB, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, proximity sensor, USB-OTG
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.1, GSM (850/900/1800/1900), UMTS (850/900/1900/2100), LTE (1,3,7,20), bandwidth download and upload: 150 MBit/s and ​50 MBit/s (LTE); SAR value: 0.53 W/kg (head); 1.51 W/kg (body), LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.69 x 147.8 x 73.4 ( = 0.38 x 5.82 x 2.89 in)
Battery
11.4 Wh, 3000 mAh Lithium-Ion, MediaTek Pump Express Plus
Operating System
Android 6.0 Marshmallow
Camera
Primary Camera: 21 MPix f/​2.0, phase-detection AF, OIS, Dual-LED flash, Videos @2160p/​30 FPS
Secondary Camera: 13 MPix f/​2.2, Videos @1080p/​30 FPS
Additional features
Speakers: speakers on the back, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, wrist strap, charger, USB cable, 24 Months Warranty, fanless
Weight
163 g ( = 5.75 oz / 0.36 pounds), Power Supply: 47 g ( = 1.66 oz / 0.1 pounds)
Price
499 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

The Kodak Ektra's design can be fittingly described as "retro". The leather-looking back with a massive camera casing really looks like an old camera. The front offers the plain design of modern smartphones that focuses on the screen. Three capacitive buttons below the display are a small special feature of the front side.

The Kodak Ektra is not a smartphone for people who like compact phones: Despite the only 5-inch display, the case is significantly more expansive than the Huawei P9 with a 5.2-inch screen. The thickness is particularly noticeable: The smartphone is up to 14 mm (~0.6 in) thick due to a side grip that supports the camera look. However, the grip is too small to ensure real stabilization and a safe grip while taking pictures.

The manufacturer Bullit, who has licensed the Kodak brand for smartphones, uses mainly plastic as material, which actually does leave a negative impression in this price category. The leather look on the back ensures a safe and pleasant grip, but the visible transition between the two leather-looking parts on the bottom is ugly.

The fabrication is quite clean, the smartphone solid. Applying pressure on the front clearly comes through to the display; however, even strong pressure is not visible on the back. The device can be barely twisted.

Size Comparison

159.6 mm / 6.28 inch 79.3 mm / 3.12 inch 8.6 mm / 0.3386 inch 192 g0.4233 lbs152.6 mm / 6.01 inch 77.4 mm / 3.05 inch 7.7 mm / 0.3031 inch 155 g0.3417 lbs152.7 mm / 6.01 inch 74.7 mm / 2.94 inch 7.35 mm / 0.2894 inch 158 g0.3483 lbs147.8 mm / 5.82 inch 73.4 mm / 2.89 inch 9.69 mm / 0.3815 inch 163 g0.3594 lbs145 mm / 5.71 inch 70.9 mm / 2.79 inch 6.95 mm / 0.2736 inch 144 g0.3175 lbs

Connectivity

Our test device has 32 GB of built-in storage, which can be expanded up to 128 GB via the microSD card slot. It also comes with 3 GB of RAM. Since the case is so bulky, it is no wonder that Kodak can easily fit a 3.5 mm headphone jack in it.

The USB Type-C port is even USB 3.0 capable and supports USB-OTG, meaning that it is possible to connect external storage devices with an appropriate cable. There is no NFC or fingerprint sensor, both of which should be standard in this price range.

Software

Basically, the manufacturer has installed an unmodified version of Android 6.0 and does not use a launcher of their own. This should make updates easier. As a matter of fact, an update was offered to us during our review and we installed it promptly. After the update, the phone still runs on Android 6.0, but the security patches are from December 2016 and therefore relatively up-to-date. There is no news about an update to Android 7.0.

Kodak's included software focuses on the photography and video features of the smartphone: For example, you can record video in Super 8 format, which applies appropriate filters to the videos. The app has a nice design, a fitting retro look, only the controls take some getting used to. "Snap gallery" is a picture gallery software that offers filters as well, but this is also the case with most photo apps these days. Aside from specific camera software, which we will take a closer look at in a moment, there is also the possibility of ordering physical prints of your pictures via Kodak's "Prints" app.

Communication and GPS

The fast 802.11 ac Wi-Fi is taken for granted in this price range, all slower standards and networks in the 5GHz network are supported too. Communication is quite speedy; the Kodak Ektra's receiving speed beats all comparison devices in our standardized WLAN test. When it comes to sending, only the OnePlus 3T can top its speed. In our practical test, we had full reception immediately next to the router and half reception ten meters (~33 ft) away and through three walls. Loading pages was quite speedy in both cases.

With four frequencies in the GSM, UMTS, and LTE network respectively, the Kodak Ektra is modestly equipped, most competing devices offer at least more LTE bands. The LTE module of the OnePlus 3T or the Huawei P9 also offers faster transmission speeds than our test device. Additionally, the Kodak Ektra has only one SIM card slot. Reception was consistently good in inner-city areas, even in buildings.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Kodak Ektra
Mali-T880 MP4, Helio X20 MT6797, 32 GB eMMC Flash
306 MBit/s ∼100%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
279 MBit/s ∼91% -9%
OnePlus 3T
Adreno 530, 821 MSM8996 Pro, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
257 MBit/s ∼84% -16%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
Adreno 506, 625, 64 GB eMMC Flash
32.9 MBit/s ∼11% -89%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
OnePlus 3T
Adreno 530, 821 MSM8996 Pro, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
313 MBit/s ∼100% +12%
Kodak Ektra
Mali-T880 MP4, Helio X20 MT6797, 32 GB eMMC Flash
280 MBit/s ∼89%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
185 MBit/s ∼59% -34%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
Adreno 506, 625, 64 GB eMMC Flash
31.2 MBit/s ∼10% -89%
GPS test indoors
GPS test indoors
GPS test outdoors
GPS test outdoors

The GPS cannot pinpoint our location indoors, but it quickly attains a precision of six meters (~20 ft) outdoors.

For more precise statements about the localization, we take the smartphone on a bike ride. The professional navigation system Garmin Edge 500 is also in our backpack so we can compare their results. The Kodak Ektra believes the route to be 400 meters (~437 yd) shorter, which is most probably due to the several "shortcuts" the GPS module invents when it loses its signal between two measuring points. The professional navigation system is significantly more accurate in this case. The Kodak Ektra should suffice if you only need an approximate localization, but if you need as accurate a positioning data as possible, you should take a look at a different device.

GPS Garmin Edge 500: overview
GPS Garmin Edge 500: overview
GPS Garmin Edge 500: intersection
GPS Garmin Edge 500: intersection
GPS Garmin Edge 500: bridge
GPS Garmin Edge 500: bridge
GPS Kodak Ektra: overview
GPS Kodak Ektra: overview
GPS Kodak Ektra: intersection
GPS Kodak Ektra: intersection
GPS Kodak Ektra: bridge
GPS Kodak Ektra: bridge

Telephone Functions and Voice Quality

Kodak, or rather Bullit, uses the standard Android app for phone calls. Not a bad choice: It is uncluttered and offers all the essential functions.

We like the voice quality. Our call partner sounds reasonably clear and is easily understood. We do not perceive any interfering noise. Our voice is also clearly transmitted, regardless of whether we talk loudly or softly. Using the phone hands-free allows for clear conversations as well. Overall, the voice quality is good with a slight potential for improvement concerning voice clarity and noise cancellation.

Cameras

Front camera
Front camera
Low-light picture taken with main camera after the update
Low-light picture taken with main camera after the update

The Kodak Ektra wants to score particularly high in this discipline, after all, this used to be the core skill of the company. However, the 21-megapixel sensor of the rear camera is made by Sony, the name Kodak appears only on the giant camera module on the back. Concerning the resolution, the sensor beats all comparison devices, and the front camera with 13 megapixels is only surpassed by the OnePlus 3T that has a front camera with 16 megapixels.

However, resolution is not everything: Other technical details of the lens and especially image processing usually make the difference. The Kodak Ektra's main camera offers at least optical image stabilization and a dual LED flash, but it lacks laser autofocus and, above all, support for RAW format, which is better for editing. Instead, there is only common phase-detection autofocus.

The camera software brings the mode dial known from SLR cameras to the smartphone. After getting used to it, it turns out to be quite usable and useful to quickly switch between the different modes such as Night, Sport or Macro. In addition, there is a dedicated camera button on the side of the smartphone. It has a two-stage pressure point, so you can set the focus and then take the picture, just as with a regular camera. It works decently, although the first pressure point could be more perceptible.

We noticed that large color areas in pictures taken with the main camera quickly become spotted; colors in pictures from the iPhone 7 Plus are considerably more finely graded. Some pictures are over-sharpened, the edges become frayed. The bad low-light performance with high color noise is the most painful. The update we received during our review is supposed to improve the image quality. We took a test picture and believe that there are indeed improvements to be seen. The level of color noise is still high in low light, and spotty colors are still present, but it is not as bad as before.

Videos can be recorded in 2160p resolution, meaning in 4K. They appear very sharp and the color reproduction is good, the smartphone rapidly reacts to light changes too. However, we had to manually adjust the focus every now and then.

The front camera's 13 megapixels offer a high resolution, and while the pictures are relatively sharp, the color reproduction is clearly too bright. We like that the leaves still have clear outlines despite the backlight.

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images

An analysis of the camera in our lab confirms that color areas are very unclean and have a high level of color noise. White in the reference color space is depicted as beige in the pictures taken with the Kodak Ektra; most shades are a bit too dark in general. Overall, objects appear sharper and more vibrant in the middle than on the edges

Test image (click for original)
Test image (click for original)
Detail of the test image
Detail of the test image
Picture of the ColorChecker colors: The bottom half of each patch displays the original color.
Picture of the ColorChecker colors: The bottom half of each patch displays the original color.

Accessories and Warranty

Kodak includes a charger and a USB cable in the box. There is also a wrist strap that can be attached to the device, as well as a SIM tool for opening the tray. Kodak sells very stylish camera cases made of leather for the Ektra. However, they are expensive, at almost 70 Euros (~$76). A simpler smartphone leather sleeve costs half as much.

Kodak offers a 24-month warranty for its smartphones in the EU.

Input Devices and Handling

The virtual keyboard comes with Google's operating system and has not been modified by Kodak. It is a good choice, but if you want a different keyboard, you can download it anytime from the Google Play Store.

There are three capacitive buttons below the display for Android's system functions. They light up after you press them and are quite precise to handle. The touchscreen's surface feels very much like plastic and the quality impression is rather mediocre. Nevertheless, precise handling is possible, even in the corners and on the edges.

The smartphone's four physical buttons are all on the right side and control the volume, wake the device up, or activate the camera and function as a shutter button. We have already talked about the camera button with two pressure stages: a good idea with relatively good implementation. The volume buttons and the standby button also function reliably.

Keyboard portrait mode
Keyboard portrait mode
Keyboard landscape mode
Keyboard landscape mode

Display

Subpixel image
Subpixel image

A Full HD display is mandatory in this price range, and the Kodak Ektra delivers: The 5-inch display has a resolution of 1920x1080 pixels. However, at 418 cd/m², the display brightness is slightly lower than that of the comparison devices, and illumination is not very even with 84%; this is particularly noticeable with big color areas. Furthermore, if the brightness sensor is activated, the maximal brightness decreases to 343 cd/m², which is irritating.

376
cd/m²
414
cd/m²
448
cd/m²
397
cd/m²
417
cd/m²
442
cd/m²
420
cd/m²
428
cd/m²
425
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 448 cd/m² Average: 418.6 cd/m² Minimum: 8.09 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 84 %
Center on Battery: 428 cd/m²
Contrast: 652:1 (Black: 0.64 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 8 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.1
ΔE Greyscale 8.6 | 0.64-98 Ø6.4
Gamma: 2.17
Kodak Ektra
IPS, 1920x1080, 5
Huawei P9
IPS-NEO, JDI, 1920x1080, 5.2
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5
OnePlus 3T
Optic-AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.5
LG V10
Quantum-IPS, 2560x1440, 5.7
Screen
49%
34%
3%
47%
Brightness middle
417
582
40%
658
58%
421
1%
450
8%
Brightness
419
563
34%
633
51%
430
3%
431
3%
Brightness Distribution
84
91
8%
93
11%
84
0%
93
11%
Black Level *
0.64
0.38
41%
0.66
-3%
0.22
66%
Contrast
652
1532
135%
997
53%
2045
214%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
8
4.4
45%
4.9
39%
7.1
11%
5.18
35%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
12.9
7.4
43%
9.1
29%
15.3
-19%
10.39
19%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
8.6
4.8
44%
5.8
33%
6.8
21%
6.94
19%
Gamma
2.17 101%
2.2 100%
2.26 97%
2.23 99%
2.24 98%
CCT
8952 73%
6175 105%
7840 83%
7866 83%
8091 80%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
77.78
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
99.44

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9705 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

With 0.64 cd/m², the black level is below average, meaning that the contrast ratio is rather bad as well (652:1). Colors appear somewhat pale on the display, but the option "MiraVision" in the options menu allows for extensive adjusting of the color reproduction.

In factory default, the color deviations from the reference color space sRGB are very high. However, the display can depict almost all colors of the color space. A strong blue tint is discernible in the grayscales, but it can be reduced by adjusting the white balance.

CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color space
CalMAN color space
CalMAN grayscales
CalMAN grayscales
CalMAN saturation
CalMAN saturation

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
30.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 9.6 ms rise
↘ 21.2 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 77 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (25.5 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
63.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 26 ms rise
↘ 37.2 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 96 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (40.7 ms).

The Kodak Ektra can be used outside, on sunny days probably only in the shadow, though. The viewing angles are very good, thanks to the IPS display, so images are discernible even from flat angles.

Outdoor use (full brightness)
Outdoor use (full brightness)
Viewing angle
Viewing angle

Performance

Kodak uses the MediaTek Helio X20 MT6797 as the SoC, clocked at a maximum of 2.3 GHz. A special feature of this system on chip: It has ten processor cores that are divided into three different clusters and activated according to power requirements. This allows for some energy savings as well as having a lot of performance available if needed.

The upper middle class SoC really does appear fast in our tests. The OnePlus 3T is significantly faster, the Huawei P9 has a slight advantage, and the other comparison devices are further behind. In practice, we could nearly always swipe through menus and apps smoothly.

The graphics chip is an ARM Mali-T880 MP4. It does not offer as stable performance values as the processor and occasionally falls behind in comparison.

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
85774 Points ∼31%
Huawei P9
95743 Points ∼35% +12%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
62484 Points ∼23% -27%
OnePlus 3T
159866 Points ∼58% +86%
LG V10
66304 Points ∼24% -23%
Geekbench 4.0
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
4596 Points ∼17%
Huawei P9
4904 Points ∼18% +7%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
4042 Points ∼15% -12%
OnePlus 3T
4236 Points ∼15% -8%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
1643 Points ∼28%
Huawei P9
1755 Points ∼30% +7%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
820 Points ∼14% -50%
OnePlus 3T
1881 Points ∼33% +14%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
1387 Points ∼33%
Huawei P9
2503 Points ∼59% +80%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
2109 Points ∼50% +52%
OnePlus 3T
1728 Points ∼41% +25%
LG V10
1267 Points ∼30% -9%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
739 Points ∼12%
Huawei P9
829 Points ∼13% +12%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
380 Points ∼6% -49%
OnePlus 3T
2418 Points ∼38% +227%
LG V10
436 Points ∼7% -41%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
825 Points ∼15%
Huawei P9
974 Points ∼18% +18%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
465 Points ∼8% -44%
OnePlus 3T
2221 Points ∼40% +169%
LG V10
510 Points ∼9% -38%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
1531 Points ∼36%
Huawei P9
2510 Points ∼60% +64%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
2112 Points ∼50% +38%
OnePlus 3T
1452 Points ∼34% -5%
LG V10
1241 Points ∼29% -19%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
1206 Points ∼11%
Huawei P9
1080 Points ∼10% -10%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
719 Points ∼7% -40%
OnePlus 3T
3310 Points ∼31% +174%
LG V10
1361 Points ∼13% +13%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
1266 Points ∼18%
Huawei P9
1237 Points ∼17% -2%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
842 Points ∼12% -33%
OnePlus 3T
2577 Points ∼36% +104%
LG V10
1332 Points ∼19% +5%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
9851 Points ∼11%
Huawei P9
15517 Points ∼18% +58%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
15984 Points ∼18% +62%
OnePlus 3T
22426 Points ∼26% +128%
LG V10
10898 Points ∼13% +11%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
18300 Points ∼3%
Huawei P9
21577 Points ∼4% +18%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
13466 Points ∼3% -26%
OnePlus 3T
34494 Points ∼6% +88%
LG V10
23276 Points ∼4% +27%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
15370 Points ∼7%
Huawei P9
19854 Points ∼8% +29%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
13955 Points ∼6% -9%
OnePlus 3T
30810 Points ∼13% +100%
LG V10
18585 Points ∼8% +21%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
31 fps ∼0%
Huawei P9
40 fps ∼0% +29%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
23 fps ∼0% -26%
OnePlus 3T
91 fps ∼1% +194%
LG V10
35 fps ∼0% +13%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
34 fps ∼1%
Huawei P9
43 fps ∼1% +26%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
21 fps ∼1% -38%
OnePlus 3T
59 fps ∼2% +74%
LG V10
25 fps ∼1% -26%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
17 fps ∼3%
Huawei P9
18 fps ∼3% +6%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
9.9 fps ∼2% -42%
OnePlus 3T
46 fps ∼8% +171%
LG V10
15 fps ∼3% -12%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
17 fps ∼5%
Huawei P9
19 fps ∼5% +12%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
9.7 fps ∼3% -43%
OnePlus 3T
45 fps ∼12% +165%
LG V10
9.4 fps ∼3% -45%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
10 fps ∼0%
Huawei P9
10 fps ∼0% 0%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
6.2 fps ∼0% -38%
OnePlus 3T
32 fps ∼1% +220%
LG V10
9.9 fps ∼0% -1%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
10 fps ∼0%
Huawei P9
11 fps ∼0% +10%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
6.1 fps ∼0% -39%
OnePlus 3T
32 fps ∼1% +220%
LG V10
5.6 fps ∼0% -44%
PCMark for Android - Work performance score (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
3479 Points ∼18%
Huawei P9
7058 Points ∼36% +103%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
6785 Points ∼35% +95%
OnePlus 3T
5664 Points ∼29% +63%
LG V10
4800 Points ∼24% +38%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
1031 Points ∼51%
Huawei P9
1029 Points ∼51% 0%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
702 Points ∼35% -32%
OnePlus 3T
891 Points ∼44% -14%
LG V10
903 Points ∼44% -12%
Graphics (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
1648 Points ∼6%
Huawei P9
1583 Points ∼5% -4%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
1019 Points ∼4% -38%
OnePlus 3T
4444 Points ∼15% +170%
LG V10
1954 Points ∼7% +19%
Memory (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
1907 Points ∼30%
Huawei P9
2627 Points ∼42% +38%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
1042 Points ∼17% -45%
OnePlus 3T
1954 Points ∼31% +2%
LG V10
1527 Points ∼24% -20%
System (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
3718 Points ∼23%
Huawei P9
3930 Points ∼24% +6%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
2923 Points ∼18% -21%
OnePlus 3T
3130 Points ∼19% -16%
LG V10
2598 Points ∼16% -30%
Overall (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
1863 Points ∼22%
Huawei P9
2025 Points ∼24% +9%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
1215 Points ∼14% -35%
OnePlus 3T
2218 Points ∼26% +19%
LG V10
1627 Points ∼19% -13%

Legend

 
Kodak Ektra Mediatek Helio X20 MT6797, ARM Mali-T880 MP4, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei P9 HiSilicon Kirin 955, ARM Mali-T880 MP4, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL Qualcomm Snapdragon 625, Qualcomm Adreno 506, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
OnePlus 3T Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
LG V10 Qualcomm Snapdragon 808 MSM8992, Qualcomm Adreno 418, 32 GB eMMC Flash

The Kodak Ektra's internal storage reacts relatively slowly to requests, random access in particular causes problems. Accessing our Toshiba Exceria Pro M401 microSD -card is also slower than on the comparison devices.

AndroBench 3-5
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
23.49 MB/s ∼27%
Huawei P9
24.83 MB/s ∼28% +6%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
50.07 MB/s ∼57% +113%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
37.59 MB/s ∼39%
Huawei P9
55.05 MB/s ∼57% +46%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
79.22 MB/s ∼82% +111%
Random Write 4KB (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
7.4 MB/s ∼3%
Huawei P9
47.45 MB/s ∼19% +541%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
7.4 MB/s ∼3% 0%
OnePlus 3T
74.39 MB/s ∼30% +905%
LG V10
16.55 MB/s ∼7% +124%
Random Read 4KB (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
17 MB/s ∼10%
Huawei P9
39 MB/s ∼22% +129%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
74 MB/s ∼42% +335%
OnePlus 3T
123.57 MB/s ∼71% +627%
LG V10
29.57 MB/s ∼17% +74%
Sequential Write 256KB (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
71.8 MB/s ∼18%
Huawei P9
72.19 MB/s ∼19% +1%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
188 MB/s ∼48% +162%
OnePlus 3T
165.3 MB/s ∼43% +130%
LG V10
105.3 MB/s ∼27% +47%
Sequential Read 256KB (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
226.3 MB/s ∼25%
Huawei P9
281.26 MB/s ∼31% +24%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
282 MB/s ∼31% +25%
OnePlus 3T
436.43 MB/s ∼48% +93%
LG V10
249.31 MB/s ∼27% +10%

Browsing websites running on modern technologies, such as HTML5 or JavaScript, is not very difficult for the Kodak Ektra: The speed is good, but the Huawei P9 offers faster web browsing.

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
3623.9 ms * ∼6%
Huawei P9
2922.6 ms * ∼5% +19%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
8041.4 ms * ∼14% -122%
OnePlus 3T
2719.3 ms * ∼5% +25%
LG V10
4498.8 ms * ∼8% -24%
Octane V2 - Total Score (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
10006 Points ∼20%
Huawei P9
11783 Points ∼24% +18%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
4905 Points ∼10% -51%
OnePlus 3T
9798 Points ∼20% -2%
LG V10
8083 Points ∼16% -19%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score (sort by value)
Kodak Ektra
54.26 Points ∼16%
Huawei P9
68.4 Points ∼20% +26%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
31.118 Points ∼9% -43%
OnePlus 3T
54.526 Points ∼16% 0%
LG V10
42 Points ∼13% -23%

* ... smaller is better

Games

The Kodak Ektra can also run 3D games from the Google Play Store, although they do not always seem completely smooth. The complex racing game "Asphalt 8: Airborne" can be played, but perhaps you should not choose the highest settings. Less demanding games, such as "Angry Birds", run without any problems, the touchscreen controls and the position sensor are very precise.

Emissions

Temperature

The lower area on the smartphone's front side warms up perceptibly, even under light load. This reaches up to 44.2 °C (~112 °F) under full load, which is impossible not to notice. For pleasant everyday use, such a high temperature increase should normally be avoided. While it does not make the Kodak Ektra dangerous, it is unpleasant to handle.

Max. Load
 42.2 °C
108 F
42.5 °C
109 F
43.5 °C
110 F
 
 42.4 °C
108 F
42.6 °C
109 F
44.2 °C
112 F
 
 42 °C
108 F
41.8 °C
107 F
43.3 °C
110 F
 
Maximum: 44.2 °C = 112 F
Average: 42.7 °C = 109 F
38.3 °C
101 F
40.9 °C
106 F
44.1 °C
111 F
39.1 °C
102 F
40.3 °C
105 F
43 °C
109 F
38.6 °C
101 F
40.2 °C
104 F
41.5 °C
107 F
Maximum: 44.1 °C = 111 F
Average: 40.7 °C = 105 F
Power Supply (max.)  31.5 °C = 89 F | Room Temperature 21.4 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 42.7 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 33.1 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.2 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 35.6 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 44.1 °C / 111 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 35.4 °C / 96 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
Heatmap front
Heatmap front
Heatmap backside
Heatmap backside

Speakers

The speaker is actually in a clever position: Behind the camera grip, it should be secure from being muffled by soft surfaces, right? Unfortunately, this does not work; even when the smartphone is lying on the table, the sound is muffled. Holding the device in your hand also does not deliver outstanding clarity, the sound is rather muffled and very treble-prone. At least the speaker can get quite loud. Nonetheless, it is not suitable for sound enthusiasts.

It is better to use the 3.5 mm headphone jack or Bluetooth. You can get good sound with appropriate speakers or headphones.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2031.6462525.437.53125.338.74032.934.95033.635.76331.639.48028.437.4100272812520.825.81602228.620021.331.225020.837.331521.246.440019.454.450019.56363017.769.180017.977.8100017.882.6125017.379.8160017.478.5200016.779.7250017.278.8315018.278.7400017.977.9500017.676.3630017.777.4800017.876.81000017.970.21250018.162.81600018.254.2SPL3090N1.379.8median 17.9median 70.2Delta1.315.926.128.726.12625.22625.42725.425.829.325.825.226.125.223.123.823.133.430.833.436.13336.135.428.935.434.724.734.743.324.943.349.71949.753.319.153.356.520.456.559.318.159.363.617.563.664.71764.768.815.968.869.114.569.170.713.770.772.614.372.675.813.475.874.213.674.275.513.375.574.312.974.371.812.771.871.81371.872.212.772.266.61366.65512.75584.427.584.456.9156.9median 66.6median 14.5median 66.69.83.69.834.429.632.434.42729.531.32728.125.831.728.131.432.22631.445.74539.445.72929.636.22926.324.428.626.325.726.725.425.724.321.621.324.328.923.423.328.939.229.622.539.249.94022.449.957.846.221.357.859.450.218.459.462.452.417.562.466.655.317.566.667.454.817.267.468.853.716.868.871.955.817.371.973.55617.473.575.357.716.675.376.758.817.376.779.36117.679.381.263.517.681.278.160.617.778.174.657.517.474.674.357.117.774.372.85617.972.868.85118.168.860.942.218.160.987.970.529.887.96825.51.368median 68.8median 54.8median 17.7median 68.811.38.11.611.3hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseKodak EktraOnePlus 3THuawei P9
Kodak Ektra audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 37.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 8.9% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (30.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 82% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 11% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 88% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 8% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

OnePlus 3T audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.35 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 14% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 76% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 44% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 47% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Huawei P9 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.91 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 31.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 45% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 66% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Frequency diagram comparison (checkboxes are selectable/deselectable!)

Energy Management

Power Consumption

Concerning power consumption, the Kodak Ektra unfortunately also does not achieve any good values, because its consumption is consistently too high. The smartphone needs quite a lot of power in idle mode as well as under full load.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.07 / 0.18 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.93 / 2.23 / 2.34 Watt
Load midlight 4.8 / 8.46 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Kodak Ektra
3000 mAh
Huawei P9
3000 mAh
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
3000 mAh
OnePlus 3T
3400 mAh
LG V10
3000 mAh
Power Consumption
17%
18%
2%
-0%
Idle Minimum *
0.93
0.77
17%
0.83
11%
0.61
34%
0.67
28%
Idle Average *
2.23
2.36
-6%
2.11
5%
1.77
21%
1.94
13%
Idle Maximum *
2.34
2.37
-1%
2.12
9%
1.81
23%
2.1
10%
Load Average *
4.8
3.09
36%
3.41
29%
6.67
-39%
6.53
-36%
Load Maximum *
8.46
5.35
37%
5.46
35%
10.98
-30%
9.93
-17%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

With 3000 mAh or 11.4 Wh, the battery capacity of the Kodak Ektra is appropriate; only the OnePlus 3T offers a slightly bigger energy reservoir. However, the smartphones use their batteries differently and the Kodak Ektra does not succeed at getting the most out of it: surfing on WLAN, the smartphone lasts 7:47 hours. It is probably possible to make the device last for a full work day, but with frequent use, even this could get difficult. The Asus ZenFone 3 or the Huawei P9 offer much better battery life.

Quick charging is supported, getting a full charge takes about 1:45 hours. The device is rather moody when it comes to different chargers: With some, it did not work at all, with others, the quick charging function did not work.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
7h 47min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 34min
Kodak Ektra
3000 mAh
Huawei P9
3000 mAh
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
3000 mAh
OnePlus 3T
3400 mAh
LG V10
3000 mAh
Battery Runtime
9%
68%
19%
-15%
Reader / Idle
1514
1502
1423
1697
WiFi v1.3
467
569
22%
797
71%
494
6%
353
-24%
Load
214
206
-4%
352
64%
282
32%
203
-5%
H.264
568
905
810
539

Pros

+ chic retro case
+ stable chassis
+ USB-OTG & USB 3.0
+ solid photo apps
+ good voice quality
+ good front camera
+ stylish accessories
+ workable performance values

Cons

- case heats up quite significantly
- bulky plastic chassis
- short battery life
- high energy consumption
- dim, low-contrast display
- relatively expensive
- poorly equipped main camera...
- ... with meager picture quality
- no NFC
- no fingerprint sensor

Verdict

In review: Kodak Ektra. Review unit provided by Kodak Germany.
In review: Kodak Ektra. Review unit provided by Kodak Germany.

The Kodak Ektra occupies a niche: It is a smartphone for people who want to stand out with their device and appreciate the retro camera design. Accessories in the form of leather camera cases are a perfect fit for that. But can the smartphone do more than just look good? It offers decent performance values, some quite amusing software additions, a stable case, and rather good voice quality. Moreover, the front camera takes decent pictures.

But the Kodak Ektra rarely excites. The problem is that the built-in main camera falls short in terms of features when compared to other, equally expensive devices, and does not even take really good pictures. The screen and battery life also did not please us.

A smartphone for photography with only a mediocre camera? The Kodak Ektra slips up in its most important discipline and adds a dim, low-contrast display, as well as weak battery life. Sadly, the cult brand will not resurrect this way.

Overall, there are significantly better offers in this price range, some of which can be even slightly more affordable. The Kodak Ektra is thus only something for fans of the brand who only use their smartphone for snapshots, anyway. Those looking for a smartphone with a really good camera should take a look at our comparison of the best smartphones for photography. 

Kodak Ektra - 01/24/2017 v6
Florian Wimmer

Chassis
84%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
89%
Connectivity
41 / 60 → 69%
Weight
91%
Battery
90%
Display
81%
Games Performance
43 / 63 → 68%
Application Performance
50 / 70 → 71%
Temperature
82%
Noise
100%
Audio
54 / 91 → 59%
Camera
59%
Average
72%
81%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Kodak Ektra Smartphone Review
Florian Wimmer, 2017-01-27 (Update: 2018-05-15)