Fujifilm XQ1 vs Nikon Coolpix S4100: An Expert Comparison of Two Ultracompact Cameras

In the crowded realm of ultracompact cameras, choice is often a tightrope walk between convenience, image quality, and ambition. Today, we pit two notable contenders from different eras and philosophies head-to-head: the Fujifilm XQ1, announced late 2013, and the Nikon Coolpix S4100 from 2011. Both cameras promise portability and ease of use, but flirt with distinct priorities from sensor technology to control granularity.

After hands-on testing with hundreds of ultracompact cameras over the years, including extended field sorties and studio shots, I’ll unpack these two through a lens of practical, real-world results backed by technical assessment. The goal: to help you decide which camera truly aligns with your photographic pursuits, be it casual travel, family snaps, or more deliberate artistry.

First Impressions - The Feel and Form Factor Face-Off

When two ultracompacts go toe-to-toe, size and ergonomics often steer initial impressions. The Fujifilm XQ1 arrives with a sturdier and more substantial feel, measuring 100 x 59 x 33 mm and weighing in at 206 grams (excluding battery and card). Nikon’s Coolpix S4100 is leaner and sleeker at 95 x 57 x 20 mm, though Nikon does not officially disclose its weight, which by feel places it notably lighter.

The XQ1’s body is built with a typical Fuji flair - a somewhat chunky, tactile grip that offers solid purchase even when shooting with one hand. The S4100, conversely, is more svelte and discreet, ideal for tucking in pockets or slipping into a small bag unnoticed. But this also translates to less pronounced handling comfort for extended sessions, which may fatigue users with larger hands or those who rely on mechanical dials.

On the controls front, Fujifilm’s penchant for manual dials and physical switches gives the XQ1 an air of enthusiast gear despite its compact size. Nikon’s interface, designed more for point-and-shoot convenience, presents a minimalistic button layout with a touchscreen LCD to compensate.

While the XQ1 invites tactile exploration - physical control dials for shutter speed, ISO, and exposure compensation - the S4100 leans on touchscreen navigation, which can be slower or less precise in bright outdoor conditions.

Verdict on ergonomics: If you prize control and comfort for deliberate shooting, XQ1 wins hands down. For grab-and-go simplicity, S4100's light footprint shines.

Sensor and Image Quality - Size Matters, and So Does Design

At the heart of any camera is its sensor, the image-making engine that defines resolution, dynamic range, noise performance, and color rendering. Here, the Fuji and Nikon cameras diverge sharply in both technology and capability.

The XQ1 boasts a 2/3" CMOS X-Trans II sensor measuring 8.8 x 6.6 mm, about double the surface area of the Nikon’s 1/2.3" CCD sensor (6.17 x 4.55 mm). Surface area in sensor design speaks volumes - larger sensors gather more light and inherently boost image quality, especially in challenging lighting.

Moreover, the Fuji employs the proprietary X-Trans color filter array, notable for reducing moiré without an optical low-pass filter, a structural advantage that preserves sharpness. Nikon’s CCD sensor, though adequate for its time and category, lags behind in dynamic range and noise control, particularly at high ISO.

Resolution-wise, Nikon edges Fuji on paper with 14MP vs 12MP, but more pixels on a smaller sensor tend to amplify noise and reduce pixel performance. The Fuji’s slightly lower megapixel count allows for larger photosites, enhancing low-light and high-ISO results.

In actual image tests - ranging from daylight landscapes to dim indoor portraits - the XQ1’s files demonstrate superior tonal gradation, particularly in shadows and highlights, with cleaner color reproduction and notably less noise at ISO 1600 and above. Nikon’s S4100 images show earlier loss of detail and increased chroma noise beyond ISO 400.

This technological chasm also reflects in raw file support - the XQ1 offers full raw shooting for post-processing flexibility; the S4100 does not support raw, constraining editing latitude decisively.

Image Quality Roundup: For photographers seeking image fidelity and creative control, Fuji’s XQ1 is a clear frontrunner. Nikon’s S4100, while okay for snapshots and web use, cannot compete in nuanced image quality.

LCD Screens and User Interface - The Touch Interaction Debate

In lieu of a built-in viewfinder, both cameras rely on their LCDs for composition and review. The XQ1 sports a 3" fixed TFT LCD with 920k-dot resolution - sharp, bright, and reasonably color-accurate. The Nikon S4100’s 3" TFT LCD carries only 230k dots, a significant downgrade visually, compounded by a ubiquitous touchscreen layer.

The higher resolution display on the Fuji allows for better focus checking and detail glance, very useful when critical sharpness is necessary, such as in portraiture or landscapes. The Nikon’s touchscreen interface introduces some lag and finger smudging issues, exacerbated outdoors under sunlight.

Fuji’s interface philosophy prioritizes tactile dials and buttons, minimizing menu dives and enabling speedy adjustments. Nikon’s reliance on touchscreen means more menu browsing for manual steps, and the lack of manual exposure modes curtails precise control.

Autofocus and Speed - Chase that Moment or Let It Slip

When shooting action - be it wildlife, sports, or street - autofocus (AF) quickness and accuracy become paramount.

The Fujifilm XQ1 features contrast and phase-detection hybrid autofocus, with face detection and continuous AF available. Its burst shooting mode can push up to 12 fps, a notable feature in an ultracompact, giving photographers an edge capturing fleeting expressions or quick-moving subjects.

By contrast, the Nikon S4100 employs contrast-detection AF only, with 9 focus points but slower locking speeds. Continuous or servo AF is basically non-existent, and burst shooting maxes out at a pedestrian 1 fps, limiting its sports or wildlife utility.

From field testing with fast-moving subjects - cyclists, playful dogs, kids running around - the XQ1 nails focus lock more reliably and keeps pace in tracking scenarios. The S4100 struggles, frequently hunting or missing decisive moments, especially in low light.

Autofocus Takeaway: The XQ1 handles action scenarios with practiced agility, while the S4100 is more suited for steady, posed shots.

Lens and Optical Performance - Fixed Zooms with Different Flavors

The lenses on these ultracompacts are fixed; no swapping lenses here. However, their specs influence versatility and image character.

• Fujifilm XQ1: 25-100 mm equiv. (4x zoom), very fast aperture of f/1.8-4.9, and a macro focus range of 3 cm.
• Nikon S4100: 26-130 mm equiv. (5x zoom), slower aperture of f/3.2-6.5, macro starting at 10 cm.

The Fuji’s brighter lens aperture at the wide end means significantly better low-light capability, shallow depth-of-field and bokeh potential, especially relevant for portraits and artistic shots. The macro focusing distance enables intimate close-ups, capturing texture and detail with authority.

The Nikon’s longer reach (130 mm tele) offers more framing flexibility for distant subjects but requires more light, and compromises image quality at max zoom and aperture.

In real-world usage, Fuji’s lens renders punchier backgrounds and subject separation, producing smoother out-of-focus areas when shooting portraits or street scenes. Nikon remains clinical and flat, which suits snapshot documentation better than creative exploration.

Build Quality and Durability - Weather Resistance and Robustness

Neither camera is marketed as weather-sealed, waterproof, shockproof, or freezeproof, which aligns with their ultracompact segment’s typical fragility. However, in hand, the XQ1 feels more steadfast, with a metal-plate construction that instills confidence over the plastic-bodied S4100.

Both cameras are vulnerable to dust, moisture, and rough treatment, so users should consider protective cases for travel or hiking shots.

Battery Life and Storage - What Keeps You Shooting?

Battery longevity is vital for any camera, more so when you are traveling or away from convenient charges.

• The XQ1 uses the NP-48 battery, rated for around 240 shots per charge according to CIPA standards.
• The S4100 relies on the EN-EL19 battery, managing about 190 shots per charge.

Though neither will break endurance records, Fuji’s more efficient power management and capability to shoot raw and faster bursts balanced against battery life make it a more reliable companion for day-long outings.

Both cameras employ single slots for SD/SDHC/SDXC cards - standard fare in the compact class.

Video Recording and Multimedia

Video specs differ substantially:

• Fujifilm XQ1 shoots Full HD 1080p at 60fps or 30fps, with H.264 compression.
• Nikon S4100 maxes out at 720p at 30fps, using MJPEG codec.

While neither supports external mic or headphone ports, the Fuji’s higher resolution and frame rate provide more cinematic and smooth footage. The Nikon trails with lower quality, limited control, and less flexible editing options.

Neither camera supports 4K or slow-motion modes, reflecting their age and category.

Connectivity and Convenience Features

Wireless connectivity has become a staple for on-the-go shooters. Here, Fuji’s XQ1 includes built-in Wi-Fi to facilitate rapid image transfer and remote control via smartphone apps - a boon for social sharers or workflow efficiency.

The Nikon S4100 lacks any built-in wireless features, which limits post-capture options to USB transfers only.

Both cameras have USB 2.0 ports, but only the Fujifilm boasts an HDMI port for instant on-the-go playback on larger displays.

Photography Discipline Evaluation - Who Shines Where?

Each photographic discipline demands different strengths, so it’s illuminating to weigh these cameras across common genres:

Sample Images and Real-World Results

Comparing direct sample images from both cameras in daylight, low light, portrait, and macro scenarios highlights these theoretical impressions.

Fujifilm XQ1 front Fujifilm XQ1 screen back Nikon S4100 front Nikon S4100 screen back

The Fuji’s images reveal richer color depth, subject separation, and less noise. Nikon’s pictures appear flatter, with muted colors and more grain especially indoors.

Overall Scores and Value Judgement

Here’s a consolidated assessment of their core capabilities and value.

Despite a higher price tag (~$500 at release) the Fujifilm XQ1 justifies its cost with superior optics, sensor quality, and advanced features. The Nikon S4100’s lower cost (~$140) positions it as an entry-level point-and-shoot for casual users prioritizing simplicity over quality.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

Who should buy the Fujifilm XQ1?

If you’re a photography enthusiast or even a professional looking for a pocketable yet capable backup camera, the XQ1’s image quality, manual controls, and video prowess make it a rewarding choice. It excels in portraits, travel, night shooting, and any scenario where image fidelity and speed are crucial. The tactile control scheme also encourages learning and thoughtful shooting.

Who should consider the Nikon Coolpix S4100?

Budget-conscious beginners or casual shooters who want an ultra-simple camera primarily for daylight snapshots will find the S4100 straightforward, lightweight, and inexpensive. Its limitations in low light, speed, and control dampen creative potential, but for family photos or travel documentation in good light, it suffices.

The Bottom Line

From my extensive experience testing ultracompacts, the Fujifilm XQ1 represents a sophisticated, enthusiast-level compact from its era, offering solid performance across genres, respectable build, and enhanced creative possibilities - something that shines through especially when compared to the more basic Nikon S4100. This match-up is ultimately a juxtaposition of technological investment versus modest simplicity. Select your champion accordingly.

If this detailed analysis highlights one overarching insight: ultracompacts may be small, but the gulf between them can be vast. Hands-on testing, including controlled shoots and in-the-field use, remains your best friend in separating the intriguing from the merely adequate.

Thank you for joining me on this deep dive. Let me know in the comments if you’d like future comparisons or hands-on tips for maximizing the appeal of compacts like these!