Nikon Coolpix S600
Nikon Coolpix S600
1
Hey! You should know that this product has been discontinued. Here are our current recommended cameras in the Ultra Compact Digital Cameras category.
Nikon Coolpix S600
Editor's Review
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
- Part Number: 25594
- UPC: 018208255948
- Release Date: Jan 31, 2008
Shop for S600 Accessories
Nikon Coolpix S600 Comments & Questions (write your own!)
Replace a broken Nikon Coolpix S600 or try something new? (adarcia — 09/12/2009)
I have loved my Nikon Coolpix S600 for compact size, speed, wide angle lens, and excellent picture quality, esp in low light. However, I had to send it back for warranty repairs twice because of a problem where I would get streaky, monochromatic images on the display (eventually fixed). Then I dropped it and got the dreaded 'lens error'. I'm considering replacing instead of repairing as it is likely to be more cost-effective. Am I better off: getting another one just like it since I liked it so much or trying another model/brand to avoid known weaknesses? Any suggestions for a comparable alternative are welcome!
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (09/12/2009)
Well, you're not really going to find anything much better feature wise since it's only a year old. But there are some great cameras in Canon and Panasonic's line. What is your budget?
reply to this comment
Nikon S600... Panasonic FS3? or another? (klgehrke — 01/16/2009)
Okay I'm looking for a compact camera around the $300 mark (that's in Aussie dollars, so I don't know what that is American... sorry)
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
reply to this comment
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
by James DeRuvo (01/30/2009)
That would be $196.37 USD. There are a few in that price range, particularly the Canon SX110IS. But don't fall into the trap that "more MP is better." It's a myth. 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 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."
reply to this comment
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."
klgehrke (01/31/2009)
Okay, so what kind of camera do you recommend I buy? I have found that 10mp are generally out off my price range anyway. I currently own a 3mp and I definitely would like a camera with more mp than that, as I often end up cropping ny pictures and 3mp simply isn't enough.
Perhaps an 8mp camera with good zoom plus all the other features I listed above? What's a good one I can be buying?
reply to this comment
Perhaps an 8mp camera with good zoom plus all the other features I listed above? What's a good one I can be buying?
by James DeRuvo (02/02/2009)
Well, it depends on your budget. However, the Canon SD1100IS and the Canon Coolpix L18 are highly rated and very affordable.
reply to this comment
Battery Life? (evitaa2007 — 12/31/2008)
Hi, does anyone know what the battery life is on this camera? Can an alkaline battery be used instead? Is the battery life going to be similar on all the ultracompacts? I know this is a lot of questions but I am new to this. Any responses would be appreciated.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (01/06/2009)
Rated at 190 shots. I'd consider about 2/3s that, though, being that it's marketing. Battery life greatly depends on the user. Are you shooting a lot of flash? Looking at the pictures in LCD? Things like that can cut the battery life and affect that 190 "rating."
reply to this comment
Difference between Nikon S600 and S610 (mbrown — 12/30/2008)
My wife bought me a S610 for Xmas . I had mentioned a S600 to her but she got me the S610 by mistake . After trying the the S610 , I returned it the next day . All the indoor shoots had a yellowish tint to them . I even played with the white balance ,with the same results . Is the S600 any better ? I love the style and shape of these cameras but I want to be able to piont and shoot with good results. I'm looking hard at the Canon SD990 even though I've always owned Nikon's (F3 and Coolpix 885 ). Both have been solid !
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (01/02/2009)
Roughly the same camera with the exception of an upgrade in processor, IIRC. I prefer the Canon though.
reply to this comment
mbrown (01/05/2009)
I have already ordered the Canon.
Thanks
reply to this comment
Thanks
by James DeRuvo (01/05/2009)
Awesome. 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!
reply to this comment
Thanks for posting it and Good luck!
I am wanting to get an easy to use, compact camera. I would like to get crisp pictures and have a decent zoom. what shoiuld I look at? (KathyA — 12/28/2008)
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (01/02/2009)
The Canon Powershot series. Currently the best out there. Also, I wouldn't fall for the "more megapixels are better" myth. Often, more MP causes more noise because stuffing more and more MP into a tiny CCD chip makes the chip less sensitive to light, not more.
Get a camera with around 8-10 mp and that'll be perfect for your basic everyday snapshots.
reply to this comment
Get a camera with around 8-10 mp and that'll be perfect for your basic everyday snapshots.
KathyA (01/07/2009)
Thanks so much!
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (01/07/2009)
You bet. We're happy to help.
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!
reply to this comment
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!
KathyA (01/07/2009)
i have never done this before where do i do this
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (01/08/2009)
Do what? Buy the camera? My suggestion is to click on the Amazon link and get your credit card out. ;)
reply to this comment
what is the differece between S600 and the new S610 (bxlarry — 08/16/2008)
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (08/19/2008)
optical image stabilization and a wider angle lens, IIRC.
reply to this comment
What is the fastest point and shoot right now? (tommytl — 07/17/2008)
It is a pain to push the button halfway when taking pics of kids.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (07/19/2008)
Point and shoots have shutter lag. It's a way of life. If you want to eliminate prefocusing, which will cut shutter lag by 80%, then your best bet is a DSLR - they have no shutter lag.
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.
reply to this comment
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.
Movie mode - Choppy? (justbarb — 07/07/2008)
In the store, I noticed that when I shot in movie mode and zoomed, it was very choppy and jumpy. Have others had this experience?
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (07/10/2008)
Well, one has to remember that video on still cameras is more a marketing feature than the provider of quality video. First off, chances are it uses an inferior codec like Motion JPEG. The bottom line is that those wanting high quality video and still pictures in an all in one solution may want to consider going the other way and getting a camcorder which shoots and save still photos onto a flash memory card. These days the quality is exceeding 6mp.
reply to this comment
justbarb (07/10/2008)
Thank you for your reply. Yes, I primarily want a still camera but also like to take short videos - family, pets, etc - and it's nice to have good quality (not great as you point out). It was probably a function of the actual camera. It was very low on battery power and that may have been a factor. I had never had this problem on my Canon so I wasn't sure if it was a commonly known problem with Nikons or with this camera in particular. Thanks for responding.
reply to this comment
by James DeRuvo (07/10/2008)
Try resetting the camera. That will clear out the memory, reload the firmware, and bring it back to factory defaults. With luck, that'll trim it out.
reply to this comment
Brenda Paro (07/10/2008)
This may also have something to do with the memory card. Using a good-sized mem card and one with fairly fast speed will improve movie mode in a lot of cases. The jumpiness can be caused as the memory card scrambles to catch up saving the movie footage.
reply to this comment
How does the S600 do in lower light, indoor situations without using flash? (budgeshot — 06/29/2008)
I am finding this a distinct problem in my current Fuji digital.
I do a lot of zooming and cropping when I edit pictures. How would this camera perform in this respect?
Thanks for any suggestions.
reply to this comment
I do a lot of zooming and cropping when I edit pictures. How would this camera perform in this respect?
Thanks for any suggestions.
steve mccall (06/29/2008)
hello
here is quote from trusted reviews review of the camera
trustedreviews.com/digital-... 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...
reply to this comment
here is quote from trusted reviews review of the camera
trustedreviews.com/digital-... 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...
What's the difference between the Coolpix S600 and the S52c? (tamden — 06/16/2008)
I'm trying to make sure that I have chosen the best camera for my needs. I have chosent the S52c. I am a casual user and I will use my camera to take vacation pictures, pictures of items I want to sell, etc. I usually post my photos on the web, but I have also blown up my pictures to put on my wall (sizes 8 x 10 and 11 x 20).
Other than the wifi feature and one less megapixel, what are the major differences between these two cameras? Thanks.
reply to this comment
Other than the wifi feature and one less megapixel, what are the major differences between these two cameras? Thanks.
by James DeRuvo (06/19/2008)
I think the biggest difference is the wifi feature, but also the S600 as a 4x optical zoom. The S52c also has an upgraded image processor.
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.
reply to this comment
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.
nikon S600 VS lumix Fx500 (suvitl — 06/15/2008)
which one is better to buy
Nikon S600 and Panasonic Lumix Fx500?
reply to this comment
Nikon S600 and Panasonic Lumix Fx500?
by James DeRuvo (06/17/2008)
For comparison, you may want to check out this resource ( imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP... ). It takes pictures with each and you can compare them side by side.
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.
reply to this comment
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.
suvitl (06/17/2008)
Many thanks to you
reply to this comment
what is difference between nikon coolpix s550 and s600 I am replaced coolpix 430 (vfinn — 06/13/2008)
I was hoping to spend around $200. Sears had a Nikon S550 kit for sale at $199. Is there a camera out there that is better than the Nikon
reply to this comment
Andrew Skinner (06/14/2008)
Vincent,
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
reply to this comment
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
Phil (06/16/2008)
I would stick with the S600, the 5x zoom of the S550 is hindered by Electronic Image Stabilization producing less than sharp images using the upper limits of the 5x optical zoom.
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/
Review of Nikon S600: reviews.cnet.com/digital-ca...
reply to this comment
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/
hany (01/28/2009)
which software to get better image quality in case of high iso
reply to this comment
Canon 1100 IS or Nikon C600? (sc2008 — 06/11/2008)
I have been looking at the Canon 1100 IS and the Nikon Cool Pix C600. I want this for snapshots with friends and for landscape photography. I have noticed that in lower light conditions (like hiking under the trees) that pictures don't usually turn out as well with a digital camera. I want something easy to take along - which both are. Both have optical image stabilization (not electronic). The Nikon offers higher megapixels and ISO. The Canon has received better reviews and ratings, and has an optical viewfinder. I have seen pictures taken with both and the skin tone seems much more realistic with the Canon, but the Nikon is better at high ISO.
reply to this comment
Andrew Skinner (06/13/2008)
Stevie,
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
reply to this comment
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
Steve (07/03/2008)
Don't get this camera until you've looked up the 'e18' error message. It makes the camera completely useless. Happened to me after only 2 weeks... For a lot of people it happens sooner than that.
reply to this comment
sherry (08/05/2008)
I loved this camera until I had it for 6 months. It took wonderful pictures, easy to see display, lovely features for nighttime , beach, etc shots. The battery pack is the problem. I can take fewer than 5 pictures and the battery needs to be changed. The charger says the batttery is ready and the camera just freezes up. I will replace it with a camera that does NOT have a battery pack. For $200, I think 6 months of use is too little.
reply to this comment
Canon 1100 IS or Nikon C600? (nwsteph1234 — 06/11/2008)
I have been looking at the Canon 1100 IS and the Nikon Cool Pix C600. I want this for snapshots with friends and for landscape photography. I have noticed that in lower light conditions (like hiking under the trees) that pictures don't usually turn out as well with a digital camera. I want something easy to take along - which both are. Both have optical image stabilization (not electronic). The Nikon offers higher megapixels and ISO. The Canon has received better reviews and ratings, and has an optical viewfinder. I have seen pictures taken with both and the skin tone seems much more realistic with the Canon, but the Nikon is better at high ISO.
reply to this comment
Andrew Skinner (06/13/2008)
Stephanie,
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
reply to this comment
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
S600 or S550? Or maybe a different one? (consiglieri — 06/08/2008)
Hi-- I'm in the process of deciding which new camera to buy. I'm used to Nikon and I'm trying to decide between the S600 and the S550. Any thoughts? Should I pick a Canon Powershot or a Panasonic Lumix instead? If so, which one? (Sonys are not an option because I want to use SD memory cards).
The camere will be use for general pics: friends, family, travels, etc.
Thanks!
Chris.
reply to this comment
The camere will be use for general pics: friends, family, travels, etc.
Thanks!
Chris.
Aditya D (06/11/2008)
I like the S600 because it has a wide angled lens, which comes in very handle for friends, family, and travel, for shooting large groups of people, as well as, large landscapes. I think if you went with this camera you would be very happy, both the Canon and the Nikon are close competitors and you won't see a ton of differences between the two. The picture quality of Nikon and Canon tends to be better than Panasonic, so I would stick with this camera.
reply to this comment
canon sd770, sd790, nikon s550, s600 (gless — 06/06/2008)
which of the four would be great? i want a new camera and i've narowed down my choices to this four. thanks.
reply to this comment
Andrew Skinner (06/11/2008)
Gless,
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
reply to this comment
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
Josh (06/11/2008)
Andrew, thanks for the run-down on these specific cameras. I actually just posted a similar question in another forum as I am torn between a Canon SD790 and the Coolpix S600. I'm upgrading from the Coolpix 2500, so I know either will be a huge improvement. I used a friend's Coolpix S600 a couple weeks ago, but I'm leaning towards the Canon. Any additional thoughts from what you wrote above?
reply to this comment
Andrew Skinner (06/12/2008)
Josh,
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
reply to this comment
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
how does the nkion s600 and canon sd850 compare in terms of performanc and picture quality (osiris5482 — 04/30/2008)
reply to this comment
dmichitti (05/02/2008)
These camera's are both very good cameras and very similar cameras. Both will give you excellent picture quality and performance (both have features like image stabilization). You should be able to buy the S600 for around $235 and the sd850 for around $215, so the pricing is pretty close too. Both Nikon and Canon get great reviews on all their cameras, but Canon's seem to get better reviews in general, so that is what I would go with.
reply to this comment
james Ratchford (05/21/2008)
The S600 has a few advantages over the SD850, and is a newer model.
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.
reply to this comment
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.
Shyam (06/11/2008)
Hi James,
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.
reply to this comment
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.
james Ratchford (06/11/2008)
Shyam,
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.
reply to this comment
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.
nikon s550 vs nikon s600 (billm46 — 04/19/2008)
which camera would be best for me. the camera would be used for family picturs inside and outside and some sporting events, as well as vacation pictures ex:buildings, scenery.
reply to this comment
Sean (04/21/2008)
the S600, its got a wide angle lens.
reply to this comment
nikons600 vs. canon sd870 (jhbugsy — 03/16/2008)
how does the nikon s600 and canon sd870 compare in terms of perfomance and picture quality?
reply to this comment
Aditya D (03/17/2008)
Well, honestly, I think most of this choice just comes down to brand preference. On one hand, Nikon has overall sharper photos, whereas Canon has better contrast and color quality. Both cameras have almost the exact same features. The Nikon seems to perform a little bit better in low light situations as well, but the Canon seems to perform slightly better in daylight situations (based on sample photos on the web, and 3rd party evaluations). Honestly, I don't think you could go wrong, so one of the things you might want to consider is which comes at a cheaper price. Hope this helps, if you have any other questions feel free to ask.
reply to this comment
james Ratchford (05/21/2008)
I own the S600 and researched them pretty intensely.
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.
reply to this comment
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.
Nikon Coolpix S600 Reviews
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
