| Shop for S600 accessories. | ||
| Loading… |
Research the Nikon Coolpix S600
Editors' Comments
The Nikon Coolpix S600 packs 10-megapixels and a 4x wide-angle optical zoom into a small, easy to use point and shoot.A 2.7-inch high-resolution LCD and Electronic Viewfinder makes reviewing images easy. The In-Camera Red-Eye Fix and the enhanced Face Priority Auto Focus ensures that every image comes out clear and crisp.
Specifications
- 10 megapixels
- 4x optical zoom (wide-angle)
- Sensor-shift vibration reduction image stabilization
- 2.7-inch LCD display
- Secure Digital memory card storage (45MB internal)
- ISO 100-3200
- Lithium-ion battery
Comments on the Nikon S600
Store Ratings and Offer Details for the Nikon Coolpix S600
| Store Rating | Store Name | Price | Visit Store |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loading… | |||
|
|||
Nikon Coolpix S600 Reviews
- 3.88425196850394 out of 5
Nikon Coolpix S600 Reviews by Digital Camera-HQ Users
- 5.0 out of 5
Coolpix s600
(Fred — 07/27/2009)
I bought this camera for my wife as a Christmas gift. We Love this little Camera. The battery stays charged for long time, takes great pictures. She keeps it in her car so we use it all the time. In fact ,we are going to buy one for my buddy for his birthday. Thank you Fred
Nikon Coolpix S600 Comments & Questions (write your own!)
The Nikon outperforms the Canon in terms of shooting speed and low light.
Performance:
Nikon has the advantage in a few ways. Shooting speed, which influences whether you get the shot you were trying to get. As a photographer, I find this more important than almost any other factor in this category.
Low light, which is many of the situations you'd use this kind of camera, such as social and family events and anything indoors. With an ISO of up to 3200 (1600 with minimal noise), the Nikon is a full "stop" ahead of the Canon, which translates to the difference between a portrait-friendly 1/15 of a second and a blurred mess 1/8 of a second (most people don't hold still quite that long) in a lot of situations.
The Canon has a slight advantage in high light, but this is an area where the performance of both is so good that it's really nitpicky to find the difference.
Picture quality: Megapixels. I don't believe the MP myth, but if you'll be enlarging or cropping, they come in handy, and the Nikon has more by a factor of 25%. In terms of glass.. you can't go wrong. Nikon and Canon have both been making top grade glass for 50 years, and it only gets marginally better from here. They both have optical image stabilization, which means those low light pics won't be ruined by your unsteady hand, though they'll still be ruined by a cough, sneeze, or sudden move (on the subject's part.)
The Nikon has the advantage again in terms of price and size/weight, but I'd say the Canon feels like a more solid camera and has a more intuitive (to a photographer) user interface. But I just recently made this very decision myself, and I would recommend that you go with the Nikon. I got mine for $249 at a major retailer, so I would suggest that you not pay more than that.
It has better low light performance with a max ISO of 3200, vs 1600 for the Canon.
It has more megapixels, but that doesn't really matter one iota. I shoot at 7 or less regardless of the capabilities.
The Nikon also has a wider angle lens, so it's more useful for group portraits and scenic shots, but not as good for intimate close ups, which cameras in this category are not intended for.
Canon has been the top dog in this category for a long time. This is the newest model from Nikon, and they've been working very hard to unseat the Powershots. I think this model has done a pretty good job.
The only thing I really prefer about the Canon is the whole look and feel/ruggedness aspect. People and other reviews tell me the Nikon is more solidly built, but i'm just not feeling it. It's lighter weight than the Canon which is a mixed bag; easier to carry, harder to hold steady.
On the whole, unless you see a fantastic deal on the Canon, I'd buy the Nikon. And I'd suggest that you look to see if there's a local dealer that you could support with your business; check Nikon's web site store locator with your zip code.
Did you experiment/compare regarding shooting speed performance ?
Other reviews that I read about Nikon s600 is that its boot time is quite fast but shooting speed is not good, shutter lag is high.
You're quite correct. I found shooting speed to be pretty frustrating. In the end I realized that a camera with the features I want no longer quite exists so I returned the Coolpix and am waiting for Canon to produce a camera that matches its high features while beating its shooting speed.
Were I to make the decision again today, I'd go for the Canon 870is. It has the wide angle zoom, good enough high iso (1600) for most uses, and a reasonable shooting speed.
Both Canon and Nikon make great cameras, it just depends on what you want to do with them.
To start off, I'm going to count the Nikon S550 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) out right away. While the camera does have the most optical zoom at 5x, the image stabilization is electronically based, so it only adjusts the shutter speed and ISO setting. It does not shift with the lens or sensor to balance any camera shake.
The big differences between the Canon SD770 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) and the SD790 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) are that the SD770 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) is about $50 less expensive, it has an optical viewfinder and a smaller LCD screen (2.5" vs 3.0"). In my opinion, the optical viewfinder is handy in bright light, the LCD size difference isn't that big of a deal, and $50 can go towards a larger capacity memory card.
When compared to the Nikon S600 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) it is a closer call. This camera has about the same price tag as the Canon SD770 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ), comes with sensor shift image stabilization (the Canons both have lens shift/optical IS, which is just as good), and both cameras have 10MP resolution photos. This camera also has more optical zoom (4x vs 3x) and comes with a larger ISO range (up to ISO 3200). Larger ISO settings will cause your photos to have a grainier look to them though.
While these features are nice, I would still pick the SD770 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ). Where the SD770 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) comes out ahead in my book is the manual exposure settings. Having the ability to adjust settings manually (when and if you get to that level) lets you manipulate the photos that much more at the point of taking them to achieve the exact exposure level you're looking for. While its not to the level of a dSLR, it is still a nice feature to have. I hope this helps. Good luck and happy shooting.
Andrew
If you've narrowed it down to those two cameras, I would go with the [digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... SD790[/url]. While it costs a little more, the manual features are still a good thing to have. I have personally used both Canon and Nikon cameras and like the user interface on the Canons a lot more. I find it more intuitive than that on the Nikon. Good luck and happy shooting.
Andrew
The camere will be use for general pics: friends, family, travels, etc.
Thanks!
Chris.
I am a big fan of Canon point and shoots over Nikons (I've used a couple different cameras from both companies). While the higher ISO is a huge help in lower lit shots, it will cause some graininess in your photos. This can be partially corrected with image software on your computer though, so I don't see it as that big of a deal. I really think you need to choose which is more important to you though: the crisper shots or the better low light performance.
One way to battle the low light is forcing the flash on with either camera. The on-camera flash unit is going to be effective to about 15 ft and could help brighten your subjects up while hiking on the trails. It could be a way for you to go with the Canon SD1100 IS ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) and still get better shots in low light situations. Good luck and happy shooting.
Andrew
I believe this was answered in this question here ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ). The answer was:
"I am a big fan of Canon point and shoots over Nikons (I've used a couple different cameras from both companies). While the higher ISO is a huge help in lower lit shots, it will cause some graininess in your photos. This can be partially corrected with image software on your computer though, so I don't see it as that big of a deal. I really think you need to choose which is more important to you though: the crisper shots or the better low light performance.
"One way to battle the low light is forcing the flash on with either camera. The on-camera flash unit is going to be effective to about 15 ft and could help brighten your subjects up while hiking on the trails. It could be a way for you to go with the Canon SD1100 IS ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) and still get better shots in low light situations. Good luck and happy shooting."
Andrew
There are some noticable differences between the Nikon S550 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) and the Nikon S600 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ). While both are 10MP cameras, I will list the differences in with the Nikon S550 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) listed first:
- Optical zoom: 5x vs. 4x: While the difference may seem small, the effective lengths of these cameras is 26-180mm vs. 28-112mm. Having the ability to go to 180mm is a big difference in my opinion.
- Image stabilization: Electronic vs. Optical: Optical image stabilization is much more effective in that it adjusts the position of the lens and/or sensor vs electrical, which only adjusts the ISO setting and shutter speeds of the camera.
- ISO Range: 64-2000 vs. 100-3200;: The higher the ISO the more light you can bring in to the photo and use the camera in lower lit situations. Note that with a higher ISO, the grainier your photos will appear. This can be adjusted with software though.
- LCD Size: 2.5" vs. 2.7": This is only a marginal difference that will hardly be noticed.
My overall chioce would vary based on what you want to use the camera for. If you want to get good indoor photos, go with the Nikon S600 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ). If you're looking to take pictures in better light and want some zoom, the Nikon S550 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ) would be a better choice.
Personally, if I was picking an ultra-compact camera for around $200, I would go with the Olympus 840 ( digitalcamera-hq.com/digita... ). It has an 8MP resolution, which is still very good for prints up to 20x30", it has 5x optical zoom (36-180mm) and dual image stabilization that combines optical and digital settings. It will only run you about $183 too. Good luck and happy shooting.
Andrew
The S600 with a better lens and Optical Image Stabilization would be your best choice. To add to the confusion, I would go for a Sony W150 or W170. steves-digicams.com/
CNET Review of Nikon S600: reviews.cnet.com/digital-ca...
Nikon S600 and Panasonic Lumix Fx500?
Sadly, the resource only had the S600. I was, however, able to compare with a previous Panasonic model the FX35. I found the photo quality to be nearly the same. The Nikon has the advantage of having a better macro, however.
So, assuming that Panasonic improves on their FX design with the FX500, and considering it offers 720p HD video, I give it the edge.
Other than the wifi feature and one less megapixel, what are the major differences between these two cameras? Thanks.
But other features make it essentially the same camera. And as for one less megapixel, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Especially at higher ISOs above 400. Let me explain. I came across an interesting article today about how more mega pixels is not necessarily a good thing. According to Image Engineering ( 6mpixel.org/en/? ) – a company that does testing of digital cameras for photo magazines in Germany – the quality of digital pictures has steadily decreased since the state of the art was six megapixels back in 2004. And because they don’t have a “dog in this hunt,” they put forth a compelling argument for buying new digital cameras with less mega pixels and not more.
The argument is essentially this: CCD chips on point and shoot cameras a smaller and as such, fitting in more pixels causes them to lose light sensivity. Sure, there’s more data on the chip, but the chip can’t absorb the light data and what it ends up with is a picture that has more noise than image quality. In addition, the more megapixels a camera has, the larger the lens it needs to provide the clarity it deserves and prevent diffraction due to a loss of detail with smaller apertures. But since we’re talking portable point and shoots here, those large lenses simply aren’t being made.
Finally, with larger mega pixels comes longer saving time due to their requires huge storage capacity, or more compression if not storing images in RAW format. The result is a noisier image and a dissatisfied camera user who thirsts for high quality and speed but fell into the trap of "more must mean better."
In the end, relying on a smaller MP that can balance all these needs may indeed be a better answer.
I do a lot of zooming and cropping when I edit pictures. How would this camera perform in this respect?
Thanks for any suggestions.
here is quote from trusted reviews review of the camera
trustedreviews.com/digital-...
The autofocus system is a big improvement on some earlier S-series models, but is still not without its problems. It is quick and accurate in good light and at wide angle, but its low light performance lags some way behind most of its competitors. It also still has a tendency to hunt around at longer zoom settings,
and the combination of telephoto and low light usually defeats it altogether.
my choice is the panasonic tz5
here is a link to a superb photo taken by a tz5
flickr.com/photos/nickybe/2...
But according to CBS - "it's the Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1, $999 Fastest point-and-shoot - shoots 60 images per second! Amazing speed; can get 30 shots of one golf swing!"
But being Casio, the quality won't be worth writing home to mother about.
Get a camera with around 8-10 mp and that'll be perfect for your basic everyday snapshots.
BTW - If you're happy with the answer you received, you can simply click on "Mark for best answer" bubble and it will place the question in the "Answered" category for all to see. Or, you can leave the question open for a little while longer and see what else gets posted.
Thanks for posting it and Good luck!
Thanks
Thanks for posting it and Good luck!
At one store a man recommended either the Nikon S600 or the Panasonic FS3 were fairly good for that price range.
I'd kind of like the following qualities:
+ 10 megapixels
+ preferably 4x optical zoom or more
+ rechargable lithium battery
+ fairly quick loading time between shots
I'd like to get a good camera that will be a fairly good quality camera for a while (considering how cameras are always being upgrading every 3 to 6 months). I'm looking at 10 megapixels too, because I often end up cropping photos. (I am aware that the Pansonic is 8mp)
So... any recommendations?
Thanks
The argument is essentially this: CCD chips on point and shoot cameras a smaller and as such, fitting in more pixels without a corresponding increase of chip size, causes them to lose light sensivity. Sure, there’s more data on the chip, but the chip can’t absorb the light data and what it ends up with is a picture that has more noise than image quality. In addition, the more megapixels a camera has, the larger the lens it needs to provide the clarity it deserves and prevent diffraction due to a loss of detail with smaller apertures. But since we’re talking portable point and shoots here, those large lenses simply aren’t being made.
Finally, with larger mega pixels comes longer saving time due to their requires huge storage capacity, or more compression if not storing images in RAW format. The result is a noisier image and a dissatisfied camera user who thirsts for high quality and speed but fell into the trap of "more must mean better."
Perhaps an 8mp camera with good zoom plus all the other features I listed above? What's a good one I can be buying?