Nikon Coolpix A900 vs Olympus FE-5010: A Thorough Comparison for Enthusiasts and Professionals

In the ever-evolving landscape of compact digital cameras, two models from different eras stand as interesting representatives of their classes: the Nikon Coolpix A900, a 2016 small sensor superzoom compact, and the Olympus FE-5010, a 2009 small sensor compact focusing on simplicity and portability. Both cameras cater to users seeking pocketable solutions, yet they differ markedly in features, sensor performance, and overall photographic capabilities.

Having put both cameras through rigorous hands-on tests, analyzing their technical specifications, image quality, handling, and usability in diverse shooting scenarios, this comparison offers a detailed examination for enthusiasts and professional photographers considering compact cameras for specialized uses or as backups.

Let’s get started by looking at their physical presence and ergonomics.

Handling and Ergonomics: Size and Control Do Matter

A camera’s physical form dictates much of the user experience. To truly understand how these cameras feel in hand, I placed them side-by-side.

The Nikon A900 measures 113 × 67 × 40 mm and weighs 289 grams, whereas the Olympus FE-5010 is substantially more compact and lightweight at 96 × 57 × 21 mm and 130 grams. The Olympus’s slim profile and lighter weight make it eminently pocketable, an advantage for street photographers or travelers seeking extreme portability. However, its small size comes at the expense of grip comfort, especially during longer shooting sessions or with a longer telephoto zoom engaged.

Ergonomically, the Nikon A900 features a more substantial hand grip and well-placed buttons that aid in quick adjustments, but the overall layout is still minimalist given its compact class. The Olympus’s fixed lens and simple control scheme keep the camera accessible but limit tactile feedback and customization.

Taking both cameras outdoors, I noted that the Nikon’s size was a boon for stability during telephoto shots, while the Olympus’s petite build encouraged spontaneous street shooting without drawing attention.

Let's dive deeper into the control and top-level layout, which governs shooting efficiency.

Top Control and Design: Intuitive or Just Basic?

Looking at the top plates, the Nikon A900 exhibits a more modern approach with dedicated dials for exposure compensation and shooting modes, plus a zoom lever integrated around the shutter button. These provide rapid control under varying light conditions or shifting subjects.

The Olympus FE-5010, produced in an earlier era, shows a minimalist approach devoid of advanced exposure controls or direct buttons for custom functions. The on/off switch and zoom lever wrapped around the shutter button are about as complex as it gets. There’s no exposure compensation dial or manual mode access, so creative control is limited to automatic or basic program modes.

For photographers accustomed to full control, the Nikon’s design will be refreshing - the Olympus feels rudimentary by comparison, possibly frustrating for users wanting more than point-and-shoot convenience.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: A Leap Forward in Resolution and Capability

The core of any camera's photographic ability lies in its sensor. Both the Nikon A900 and Olympus FE-5010 use the 1/2.3” sensor size - a common standard for compacts - but technology and resolution differences make a clear divide.

The Nikon uses a 20-megapixel backside-illuminated (BSI) CMOS sensor measuring 6.17 × 4.55 mm, while the Olympus sports a 12-megapixel CCD sensor measuring 6.08 × 4.56 mm. BSI sensors typically deliver improved low-light performance and better dynamic range compared to older CCD designs, particularly when paired with CMOS architecture.

In daylight conditions, the Nikon's higher resolution yields sharper images and greater cropping flexibility without significant noise penalties. The Olympus images have softer details, in part due to its lower resolution and the CCD's inherent characteristics, but the images can still be pleasant under good lighting.

Low-light scenarios expose a more significant difference: the Nikon maintains usable images up to ISO 3200, with noticeable but manageable noise levels thanks to sensor and processing improvements. Meanwhile, the Olympus's maximum ISO rating is 1600, but noise quickly becomes an issue beyond ISO 400, limiting usable sensitivity.

The Nikon’s wider ISO range supports more versatile shooting environments, especially in indoor or dim conditions. This flexibility ties directly into various photography types we will explore shortly.

LCD Screen and User Interface: Seeing Is Believing

Display quality and interface responsiveness greatly influence the shooting experience, especially on compacts without viewfinders.

The Nikon A900 boasts a 3-inch tilting LCD with 921,000 dots of resolution - considered sharp and color-accurate for its time. The tilting mechanism offers creative flexibility for shooting at awkward angles, such as low to the ground or overhead.

Conversely, the Olympus FE-5010 houses a fixed 2.7-inch screen with far lower resolution (230,000 dots). The smaller, less crisp display hampers reviewing details and composing precisely in bright sunlight. The lack of tilting also limits ergonomic options.

Neither camera offers a viewfinder, so reliance on the LCD is paramount. The Nikon’s screen delivers a much better live view experience essential for detailed framing and navigating menus.

Autofocus and Speed: Tracking Moving Subjects

Speed and accuracy in autofocus (AF) are critical facets for capturing fleeting moments in wildlife, sports, and street photography.

The Nikon A900 leverages contrast-detection AF with face detection and subject tracking capabilities. It offers AF modes including single, continuous, center, and multi-area AF. Continuous AF is particularly useful for following moving subjects.

The Olympus FE-5010 also uses contrast-detection AF but lacks advanced tracking algorithms, face detection, or continuous AF modes. Its AF is limited to single-area focus, which slows down acquisition and hampers focus precision on fast or erratically moving targets.

In practice, the Nikon focuses more swiftly and accurately in challenging scenarios, such as a child running in a park or a bird in flight, while the Olympus often hunts or misses under those conditions.

Zoom and Lens Versatility: Reach vs. Compactness

Lens reach and aperture inform composition possibilities and performance under various lighting and distance conditions.

The Nikon Coolpix A900 shines with a 35x optical zoom ranging from 24 to 840 mm (35mm equivalent) and a maximum aperture varying from f/3.4 (wide) to f/6.9 (telephoto). This incredible focal range is attractive to travelers, wildlife photographers, or event shooters needing flexibility without changing lenses.

The Olympus FE-5010 features a more modest 5x zoom covering 36 to 180 mm at f/3.5-5.6 aperture. It lacks the versatility of the A900 but is compact enough for street and casual shooting.

The Nikon permits getting close to subjects far away without sacrificing portability - it's like carrying a whole travel kit in your pocket, within reason. There’s some trade-off in low light at longer focal lengths due to the small maximum aperture, but image stabilization helps compensate.

Olympus’s shorter zoom is less intimidating for casual users but constrains framing versatility.

Image Stabilization: Controlling Blur

Both cameras include image stabilization to counteract camera shake, critical at longer focal lengths or slower shutter speeds.

The Nikon employs optical stabilization embedded in the lens mechanism, which effectively smoothes out small hand tremors particularly in telephoto ranges. Its stabilization has been reliable in my testing, enabling hand-held shots at shutter speeds up to 1/15s at wide or moderately longer focal lengths without noticeable blur.

The Olympus uses sensor-shift stabilization, shifting the image sensor to compensate for shake. Sensor-shift systems in compacts can be effective, but generally, optical stabilization is preferred especially when paired with long zooms.

While both stabilize adequately in normal use, the Nikon holds an edge in telephoto performance due to lens-based stabilization.

Burst Shooting and Shutter Speeds: Capturing the Decisive Moment

The Nikon supports continuous shooting up to 7 frames per second - a nod to action photography capabilities within the compact realm. This burst mode is useful for tracking fast-moving subjects or capturing sports sequences.

The Olympus lacks a stated continuous shooting rate, and given its hardware era, is limited in this regard.

Shutter speed ranges also matter: Nikon goes from 8 seconds to 1/4000 sec, offering flexibility for both long exposures and bright daylight shots. Olympus ranges from 4 seconds to 1/2000 sec, adequate for general use but less flexible for fast-action shoots.

Summarily, Nikon supports a broader range for creative and fast shooting compared to Olympus’s basic offerings.

Video Features: Modern Demands Versus Legacy Limitations

In today's content-driven world, video capabilities are essential.

The Nikon Coolpix A900 offers 4K UHD recording at 30 or 25 fps, plus Full HD 1080p at up to 60 fps. Formats include MPEG-4 and H.264 compression. While the lack of a microphone port limits external audio sources, internal mics are sufficient for casual use.

Olympus trails significantly, providing a maximum resolution of 640 × 480 pixels (VGA quality) at 30 fps in Motion JPEG format - a considerable downgrade unsuitable for modern video projects.

If video is a consideration, Nikon's A900 is the clear, future-proof choice.

Battery Life and Storage: Days Out and Data Management

Battery endurance affects shooting during travels or events.

The Nikon’s EN-EL12 battery claims around 300 shots per charge, which is acceptable though not generous for day-long use. The Olympus’s battery capacity details aren’t specified, but being an earlier model with smaller LCD and lower resolution sensor, it likely fares similarly - though its tiny build can translate to shorter usage.

Both use single memory card slots: Nikon uses standard SD/SDHC/SDXC, while Olympus employs xD-Picture Card and microSD with an optional adapter. SD card availability and capacity are advantages for Nikon users, as xD cards are now obsolete and pricey.

Build Quality and Environmental Sealing

Neither camera offers weather sealing or ruggedization. The Olympus FE-5010 at least notes environmental sealing, which should afford some protection against dust or minor moisture, a surprising feature for a budget compact in 2009.

Nikon does not advertise any weather resistance, making caution advisable during harsh conditions.

Real-World Performance Across Photography Genres

Now that we have dissected individual features, it’s time to look at the cameras’ suitability across popular photography domains.

Nikon A900 front Nikon A900 screen back Olympus FE 5010 front Olympus FE 5010 screen back

Portrait Photography

The Nikon’s 20MP sensor, face detection autofocus, and 35x zoom let you create portrait compositions with flattering background blur in telephoto range. Skin tone reproduction is natural under daylight; however, the small sensor limits bokeh quality compared to larger sensor cameras. Its face detection autofocus typically locks quickly on eyes or faces, helping with sharp portraits.

Olympus struggles here: 12MP resolution with no face detection and limited zoom reduces framing options and focus reliability.

Landscape Photography

Nikon’s higher resolution and better dynamic range support landscape shooters, especially in good light. The versatile zoom allows wide-angle vistas at 24mm equivalent. Yet, the small sensor constrains ultimate image quality and fine detail capture when compared to larger-sensor compacts or mirrorless cameras. Lack of weather sealing also discourages harsh outdoor conditions.

The Olympus’s lower resolution, limited dynamic range, and fixed lens restrain its effectiveness for detailed landscapes. Its environmental sealing helps slightly if weather worsens.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

Here, Nikon’s 35x zoom combined with 7fps burst shooting and continuous autofocus tracking is appealing for casual wildlife or sport photography in moderate light. Still, autofocus speed and accuracy are not on par with higher-end mirrorless or DSLR systems, and sensor noise rises above ISO 1600, limiting low-light capabilities.

Olympus cannot realistically compete in this area due to limited zoom, no continuous AF, and no burst shooting. It’s better suited for casual snapshots.

Street Photography

Olympus’s lightweight, pocketable body with discreet design excels in street photography, allowing unobtrusive shooting. However, slow AF and limited zoom can reduce compositional flexibility.

Nikon’s larger size makes it more conspicuous, but its tilting screen aids shooting from less obvious angles. Lower-light autofocus performance and silent shutter aren’t available, so discretion may be compromised.

Macro Photography

Nikon’s 1cm macro focus range paired with good stabilization aids close-up shots, while Olympus offers 3cm minimum focus distance. Nikon has the edge for flexibility and image clarity in macro shooting.

Night and Astro Photography

Both cameras’ small sensors limit their utility in astrophotography.

Nikon’s ability to shoot up to ISO 3200 with 8-second shutters is minimally sufficient for wide-field nightscapes, but noise and limited manual control impede results. Olympus lacks long shutter speeds and high ISO headroom, making it unsuitable.

Video Recording

With 4K video and higher frame rate options, Nikon is viable for casual and travel video creation. Olympus’s video quality is dated and of limited practical use.

Travel Photography

Nikon’s ultra-zoom and decent performance make it versatile for travel, especially when changing lenses is inconvenient. However, battery life could limit day-long use without spares.

Olympus’s ultra-compact design is ideal for ultra-light packing, though with compromises on image quality and zoom.

Professional Use

Neither camera is a choice for professionals relying on RAW capture, fast pro-level AF, or robust build quality. Nikon offers no RAW, limiting post-processing flexibility. Olympus’s features are even more constrained.

Connectivity Features: Modern Convenience or Legacy?

Nikon A900 supports Bluetooth and NFC for easy wireless image transfer, along with HDMI and USB 2.0 ports. Such features facilitate mobile workflows and quick sharing.

Olympus lacks wireless connectivity and HDMI out, restricting flexibility in today’s networked environments.

Price and Value: What Do You Get for Your Money?

For around three times the Olympus price, Nikon delivers a camera with substantially better image quality, zoom versatility, video capabilities, and modern connectivity. Olympus’s appeal is low cost and extreme portability but comes with notable compromises.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

Having walked through the specifications, tested capabilities, and real-world shooting scenarios, here’s how I would advise potential buyers:

• If you seek an all-in-one travel-friendly camera with great zoom flexibility, better image quality, 4K video, and modest manual controls, the Nikon Coolpix A900 remains an economical choice. It balances features to satisfy many enthusiasts and casual pros who prioritize reach over sensor size.

• If your priority is pocketability, simple operation, and budget constraints with occasional snapshots in good light, Olympus FE-5010’s tiny, lightweight form factor may suit you. Yet, be prepared for compromises in image quality and speed.

• For professional photographers or advanced enthusiasts looking for high-level control, RAW files, and superior autofocus systems, neither is sufficient. Invest in modern mirrorless or DSLR systems.

In sum, the Nikon Coolpix A900 stands as a more capable camera for diverse photography styles than the older Olympus FE-5010, especially considering advances in sensor technology, zoom range, and video - all crucial to today’s photographic needs. The Olympus, though a charming budget compact, is a time capsule best suited to casual users or collectors.

Disclaimer: Both cameras represent earlier technology generations. While worthwhile for specific niches, buyers should weigh these findings against current market offerings for the best long-term satisfaction.

I hope this exploration sheds light on your camera research journey, helping you choose a tool that fits your artistic vision and practical use. Happy shooting!