Kodak PIXPRO FZ45 vs FZ55: Which Should You Buy?

What the FZ45 and FZ55 share

These cameras look almost identical, and most of the basic shooting experience is the same. Both use a 16-megapixel-class 1/2.3-inch CMOS sensor, record Full HD video at up to 1080p and 30 frames per second, and have a 2.7-inch rear screen with 230,000 pixels. Both also rely on digital image stabilization rather than optical stabilization.

The menu system, general body shape, image-resolution options, and core shooting modes are also very similar. I would not choose between them because you expect a dramatic difference in basic image quality. The meaningful differences are the lens, battery system, body size, and price.

I tested both cameras side by side and recorded handheld 1080p footage from each at the wide end. That comparison is included in the video above. The supplied comparison does not establish a clear image- or video-quality winner, so this buying decision comes down to practical features.

Kodak FZ45 vs FZ55 specs

The stable specifications and current manufacturer pricing in this table come from Kodak PIXPRO's official product pages and spec sheets. Retail prices, bundles, and availability can change, so check the linked listings before buying.

The FZ55 has more zoom, but the FZ45 starts wider and brighter

The FZ55 has the more versatile zoom range. Its 5x lens covers a 28-140mm full-frame-equivalent field of view, compared with 27-108mm from the FZ45's 4x lens. The one-millimeter difference at the wide end is subtle. The extra reach from 108mm to 140mm is much easier to notice.

That makes the FZ55 more useful when you cannot move closer to a subject. It is the better of the two for travel details, casual portraits from farther away, and any situation where the long end matters.

The FZ45 has a small advantage at the other end. At its widest setting, it is slightly wider at 27mm equivalent and opens to f/3.0. The FZ55 starts at 28mm and f/3.9. If you hold the camera at arm's length for vlogging or work in a cramped space, the FZ45 can fit a little more into the frame and let in more light at the wide end.

At full telephoto, the situation reverses slightly: the FZ55 is f/6.3 while the FZ45 is f/6.6. I would not buy either camera for dramatic shallow depth of field, and the FZ45's potential background-separation advantage at the wide end is modest. The practical choice is simpler: FZ45 for the widest handheld view, FZ55 for noticeably more telephoto reach.

The biggest difference is the battery system

The FZ45 runs on two AA batteries. You can use disposable alkaline cells or buy rechargeable NiMH AAs, which is what I prefer if I am going to keep using an AA-powered camera. When the batteries die, you can swap in a fresh pair immediately. That is useful on a trip, at an event, or anywhere an outlet is hard to find.

The FZ55 uses Kodak's rechargeable LB-012 lithium-ion battery. It stays in the camera and charges through the Micro-USB port. I personally prefer this setup because I can plug in the camera, keep a spare proprietary battery, and avoid cycling through disposable AAs.

In my practical comparison, I considered the AA setup capable of competitive or slightly longer runtime depending on the cells used, but I did not present a controlled battery test. Kodak's standardized ratings point the other way for the included battery types: about 120 still photos from alkaline AAs in the FZ45 versus about 200 from the FZ55's lithium-ion battery. Rechargeable AA capacity and real-world shooting habits vary, so choose the system for convenience and replaceability rather than assuming one runtime figure applies to every battery.

Check the rechargeable AA batteries I use with the FZ45

The FZ45 is easier to grip; the FZ55 is easier to pocket

The AA compartment makes the FZ45 thicker. That extra depth creates a more pronounced grip, and I found it a little easier to hold securely. If comfort matters more than fitting the camera into the smallest pocket, that is a real advantage.

The FZ55 is slimmer, a little shorter, and about 11 grams lighter before batteries are considered. I also think it looks sleeker. The difference is not enormous, but it supports the FZ55's main strength: it is the more convenient camera to carry around all day.

Remember that the published weights are body-only figures. The batteries you install change the actual carry weight, especially with two AAs in the FZ45.

Is the FZ55 worth the extra money?

At the time of the original comparison, the FZ45 was selling for around $120 and the FZ55 for around $140. When I checked Kodak's official US pricing on July 29, 2026, the listed MSRPs were about $130 and $160. That makes the current manufacturer-price gap closer to $30, although actual retailer prices can be higher or lower.

If both cameras are near those prices and you definitely want one of them, I still think the FZ55 is worth the premium for most buyers. You get meaningfully more zoom reach, a slimmer body, and the rechargeable battery system I prefer.

Value changes if the FZ45 is heavily discounted or you already own good rechargeable AAs. It also changes if your main use is arm's-length video, where the FZ45's slightly wider and brighter wide end directly addresses the job.

Neither camera would be my first recommendation for someone trying to learn exposure, lenses, and the basics of photography. A used interchangeable-lens camera can provide much more room to grow, even if it is larger and less convenient. If you only want a simple compact camera for casual photos and the point-and-shoot look, then the Kodaks make more sense.