Casio Exilim EX-FC150 vs Nikon Coolpix S640: A Practical Dive into Compact Camera Classics

When exploring the compact camera market in the late 2000s, two contenders that caught my eye during extensive hands-on testing were the Casio Exilim EX-FC150 and the Nikon Coolpix S640. Both models showcase the era’s approach to delivering versatile point-and-shoot options, yet they occupy subtly different niches within the small sensor compact space. Over countless shooting sessions - ranging from casual strolls through city streets to experimental macro and landscape work - I have gathered insights that highlight the strengths and trade-offs of each.

This article blends my technical experience with daily photographic use cases to help you decide which camera aligns better with your style, budget, and workflow preferences. We’ll unpack sensor tech, ergonomics, optics, and real-world capabilities across the photography genres you care about most. Ready? Let’s zoom in.

Physical Footprint and Handling: Size, Weight, and Ergonomics

Handling that camera comfortably isn’t just about feel - it's a critical factor that shapes your shooting attitude, steadiness, and ultimately, image quality. Here, size and weight differences between these compacts are subtle but telling.

The Casio EX-FC150 measures 99 × 58 × 28 mm and weighs approximately 173 grams. On the other hand, the Nikon S640 tips the scale lighter at 130 grams with slightly smaller dimensions of 91 × 55 × 21 mm. The Nikon’s more slender profile is undoubtedly easier to pocket or slip into a small bag, which is a boon when roaming urban environments or traveling light.

Ergonomically, the Casio’s slightly bulkier build feels more grounded in hand, providing a bit more grip security especially during extended handheld shooting. The Nikon trades that for minimalism, which can sometimes make it prone to a less stable hold - something to keep in mind if you tend to shoot in tricky angles or extended durations.

Looking at the control surface, both cameras favor simplicity - no dedicated manual mode dials or custom buttons here, as is typical with compacts from their generation. Their fixed-lens designs tighten usability but limit versatility somewhat.

Casio’s EX-FC150 places buttons and dials with modest spacing for day-to-day navigation, though I often missed backlit controls during low-light shoots. The Nikon S640 has a sparse top panel dominated by the shutter button and zoom rocker, with limited tactile feedback. In practice, Casio’s design felt more intuitive over repeated use, while Nikon leaned heavily on on-screen menus to change settings.

Bottom line for handling: if you prize pocketability, Nikon scores - but if you’re looking for a slightly more reassuring grip and button ergonomics, Casio edges ahead.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

For true image quality geeks - myself included - the sensor specs and raw capabilities can’t be ignored. Despite both cameras sticking to the small sensor compact mold with a 1/2.3” size, the devil is in the details.

The Casio sports a 10MP BSI-CMOS sensor, notable because back-illuminated designs boost light-gathering efficiency compared to traditional CCD layouts common in this segment at the time. Nikon’s Coolpix S640 relies on a 12MP CCD sensor. The extra 2MP offers a slight bump in resolution, but the difference is not purely about pixel count.

BSI-CMOS sensors - in theory - have improved low-light sensitivity and dynamic range. However, the Casio’s max ISO tops out at 1600 vs Nikon’s higher ceiling of ISO 6400 (though elevated ISO comfort levels for both remain limited given compact-sized sensors prone to noise).

In actual tests under varied lighting - from bright sunny scenes to dim interiors - the Casio delivered cleaner images at ISO 400 and 800, with less grain intrusion and better color consistency. Nikon’s CCD sensor struggled more with noise above ISO 400, but the extra resolution afforded more cropping flexibility for prints or moderate enlargements.

Color reproduction was surprisingly balanced on both; neither camera provides advanced custom white balance settings on par with more modern units, but Casio’s manual white balance option allowed for minor tweaks that I found helpful. Nikon lacked this, which sometimes resulted in slight color casts in mixed lighting conditions.

Given the fixed lens and sensor combo, expect modest results relative to mirrorless or DSLRs, but both produce usable JPEGs for everyday shooting and web sharing. There’s no RAW support here, which limits post-processing latitude - a considerable caveat for professionals or ambitious hobbyists.

Shooting Experience: Autofocus, Burst, and Shutter Behavior

Both cameras use contrast-detection autofocus (AF), standard fare for compact cameras, but their focusing responsiveness and accuracy vary.

Casio’s EX-FC150 autofocus is basic but serviceable for static subjects, with a single AF point exclusively, and no continuous AF or face detection. In practice, this means you have to be deliberate about focusing, especially in dynamic scenarios. Manual focus mode exists but is not a smooth experience due to the small electronic interface.

Nikon’s S640 shares similar limitations - no manual focus option, single contrast AF point, no face detection or tracking. It’s also prone to “hunting” in low light or low-contrast scenes, which can frustrate street photographers or those shooting fast-moving subjects.

Interestingly, Casio’s continuous shooting mode offers a blazing 40 fps burst rate at reduced resolution, a novelty that fascinated me more as a tech demo than a practical tool. The Nikon doesn’t specify a burst rate to the same effect and performs at a slower continuous pace, making Casio better suited for capturing fleeting moments - albeit at lower quality frames.

Shutter speeds on the Casio max out at 1/1000 sec; Nikon doubles that ceiling at 1/8000 sec, offering more flexibility with wide apertures under bright conditions. Neither camera offers advanced exposure modes like shutter or aperture priority, confining creative control.

Lens Performance and Focal Flexibility

Fixed lenses on these compacts provide a convenient all-in-one solution but come with compromises in sharpness, aperture, and reach.

The Casio EX-FC150’s lens covers 37-185mm equivalent focal length with a constant F3.6-4.5 aperture. Nicely telephoto-heavy if you want some reach for casual wildlife or sports snapshots, but limited for low-light or wide landscapes.

Nikon’s S640 has a broader zoom range of 28-140mm equivalent, starting at a more generous F2.7 wide end, beneficial for indoor and low-light shooting. Beyond the aperture, its sharper optical formulas yielded slightly better edge-to-edge sharpness than Casio in my tests - especially at the wide-angle setting.

For macro enthusiasts, Nikon’s 2cm minimum focus distance outperforms Casio’s 5cm, enabling more detailed close-ups - a detail that impressed me after some impromptu flower and insect trials. However, Casio’s lens-shift stabilization partly compensates for its slower aperture and longer reach by reducing blur from hand shake.

LCD and Interface Usability

A camera’s back screen is your primary viewfinder on these compacts, so its size, resolution, and interface responsiveness can make or break the user experience.

Both offer a 2.7-inch fixed LCD with 230k-dot resolution - modest by today’s standards but typical for their release period. Clarity and viewing angles suffer slightly on both, although Nikon's screen felt a tad crisper and more responsive in live view, likely benefiting from its Expeed processor.

Neither supports touch input or articulated screens, limiting framing flexibility. Casio’s interface leans a bit more on physical controls which, as noted, are clearer and easier to operate without peeking - a subtle advantage when shooting spontaneously. Nikon's menus, while clean, rely mostly on on-screen navigation, which can slow workflow.

Video Capabilities: Casual Clips or Creative Clips?

Videos are often an afterthought in compacts of this vintage, but these models show marked differences.

Casio EX-FC150 supports motion JPEG video up to 1280x720 at 30fps and has exotic slow-motion modes reaching up to 1000fps at reduced resolutions - a feature that delighted me in experimental shooting, though its practical use is niche. Audio quality is basic, and there’s no external mic input, so sound recording is limited.

Nikon S640 also shoots 720p at 30fps, but without slow-motion flair. Its Expeed processing delivers smoother encoding for normal clips but similarly lacks external audio options. Both fall short of contemporary video standards but satisfy for simple social media sharing.

Specialized Use Cases: Discipline-by-Discipline Realities

Let’s now take a lens-focused look at how these cams perform across photography genres I have rigorously field-tested.

Casio EX FC150 front Casio EX FC150 screen back Nikon S640 front Nikon S640 screen back

Portraits

Neither camera features advanced face or eye detection autofocus, limiting their prowess for portrait photography. The Nikon’s wider aperture and macro abilities offer somewhat nicer background separation at the wide end, while Casio’s longer telephoto allows moderate compression. Both render skin tones fairly naturally but can show softness in detail, especially when zoomed in.

Landscapes

The Nikon S640’s resolution and sharper lens edges better serve landscape photographers wanting crisp details. However, both lack weather sealing; these are not your go-anywhere wilderness companions. Use them for casual hikes rather than challenging conditions.

Wildlife

Telephoto is king here - Casio’s 185mm equivalent reaches impressively far in this class, but autofocus is slow and prone to failure in tracking erratic movement. Nikon’s maximum 140mm telephoto zoom with its sharper optics somewhat balances out the reach deficit. Neither camera is ideal for serious wildlife shoots involving rapid subject movement.

Sports

Fast burst rates are essential here. Casio’s theoretical 40fps burst sounds great on paper but produces lower-resolution images, and contrast AF struggles with rapid action. Nikon’s slower burst speed and similar AF limitations hold it back. I wouldn’t recommend either for sustained sports photography beyond casual snapshots.

Street Photography

Discretion and ease define street shooting. Nikon’s smaller size and quicker autofocus responsiveness give it an edge. Casio’s larger size and zoom make it slightly more conspicuous but can be a creative asset for capturing distant candid moments. Low light performance is weak in both, so use supplemental lighting or embrace grainy aesthetics.

Macro

Macro shooters will appreciate Nikon’s shorter 2cm focus distance and decent optical sharpness, plus steadier handling due to lighter weight. Casio’s stabilization helps with handheld macro, but the longer minimum focus compromises close-up framing flexibility.

Night and Astrophotography

Sensor size and ISO prowess matter here. I found Casio’s BSI-CMOS yields cleaner high ISO despite lower max ISO. However, neither have long exposure modes better suited for star trails or astrophotography. Tripod use and external remotes are mandatory.

Video

Referencing their respective video formats and frame rates, Casio’s slow-motion quirks might enchant creators dabbling in experimental work, while Nikon serves straightforward clips better. Neither boasts advanced codecs or manual video controls.

Travel Photography

Travelers benefit from balance - size, battery, flexibility. Nikon’s lighter, smaller form and wider aperture lens make it a better everyday companion. Casio’s longer zoom covers diverse scenes but at the cost of bulk.

Professional Workflows

Lacking RAW shooting, manual controls, and tethering capabilities, neither model fits professional use. They are entry-level compacts best suited for casual or hobbyist usage.

Reliability, Build Quality, and Battery Life

Neither camera is weather-sealed or ruggedized - standard limitations of compact cameras at this pricing and period.

Battery life specs are absent or inconsistent, but real-world use suggests modest endurance - Casio’s NP-40 and Nikon’s EN-EL12 batteries both require frequent charging sessions during extensive shoots. Carrying spares is advisable.

Storage-wise, both accept SD/SDHC cards, plentiful and affordable for this segment.

Connectivity is minimal: Casio supports Eye-Fi wireless cards for image transfer - a somewhat unreliable and now legacy tech; Nikon offers no wireless functionality. USB 2.0 ports serve for file transfers only.

Value and Price-to-Performance Balance

At approximately $350 when new, the Casio Exilim EX-FC150 emphasizes telephoto reach and burst rate innovation over image quality - an intriguing but niche proposition.

The Nikon S640, more affordable around $225, offers better optics, a wider aperture, higher resolution sensor, and greater portability. For general photography with occasional travel needs, it delivers better bang-per-buck.

While neither camera dazzles by modern standards, in their class and era, Nikon’s S640 strikes the better overall balance for enthusiasts seeking manageable image quality and compact convenience, whereas Casio’s EX-FC150 might appeal to those prioritizing zoom capacity and quirky slow-motion video.

Final Thoughts: Which One Suits You?

Here’s a candid takeaway based on where you stand as a photographer:

• Casio EX-FC150: If you appreciate high burst rates for action snippets, want extended telephoto reach for casual wildlife or sports snapshots, and like the idea of slow-motion video experiments (even if niche), Casio’s offering dazzles in those areas. But be ready for slower autofocus and bulkier handling.

• Nikon Coolpix S640: If your priority is balanced image quality - with sharper optics and better low-light capabilities - paired with a lighter, more pocketable design, Nikon makes more sense. It’s an easier everyday carry and offers modest creative flexibility with its wider lens and macro focus.

For portraiture, landscapes, street photography, and travel, Nikon feels more versatile, while Casio serves specialized telephoto and fast-sequence demands, albeit within the fixed limits of small sensor compacts circa 2009.

Friendly Reminder: Testing Methodology and Context

My evaluations come from extensive field tests under varying light and shooting conditions, using controlled test charts for sharpness and color benchmarking, as well as real-world shooting in cities, nature, and indoor settings. I relied on direct JPEG outputs with minimal post-processing to judge native camera quality, combining objective measurements with subjective user experience including menus, controls, and interface feedback.

While these cameras never intended to replace DSLRs or mirrorless systems, they reveal the compromises and innovations manufacturers attempted in the evolving compact camera market just before smartphones truly disrupted the scene.

In conclusion, either camera can satisfy basic photographic needs and fit niche interests. Your choice hinges on what aspects - zoom reach, portability, image finesse, or video creativity - matter most to you.

Happy shooting, whichever compact companion you take along! And remember: no camera is perfect, but the best camera is the one you enjoy using.

If you found this comparison helpful, feel free to explore more of my reviews comparing classic and contemporary cameras across all genres.