Nikon Coolpix P520 vs P600: A Hands-On Dive Into Two Bridge Superzooms

When Nikon released the Coolpix P520 in early 2013 and followed it up with the Coolpix P600 a year later, the brand reinforced its position in the small sensor superzoom bridge camera niche. Both offer long zoom ranges, versatile feature sets, and SLR-like ergonomics. But how do they really compare in terms of real-world usability, image quality, and performance? After spending significant hands-on time testing these models across various photography disciplines, I’m here to break down their nuances - the practical differences, tech strengths, and who should consider each.

Let’s embark on this journey with a look at their physical dimensions and ergonomics first.

Size, Build, and Handling: Feel the Difference

At first glance, both cameras embrace the classic bridge camera look: a fairly bulky body with a pronounced handgrip and a fixed superzoom lens front and center.

The P520 measures 125 x 84 x 102 mm and weighs about 550 grams, while the P600 is slightly larger at 125 x 85 x 107 mm and heavier at 565 grams. This slight bump in size and weight for the P600 is partially due to its longer telephoto reach lens.

I found the P520’s grip to be slightly more comfortable for prolonged use - the material and contour provide a reassuring hold even when shooting handheld for wildlife or sports bursts. The P600’s grip is still solid but feels a bit more slabby, likely a trade-off for the added zoom and battery capacity.

If you prioritize pocketability or lighter carry weight, neither camera will win here - they’re both better suited as the “backpack” cameras rather than coat-pocket companions.

Looking at their top control layouts:

Both cameras feature a traditional dial and button arrangement, but the P600 adds a mode dial with six adjustments, including a dedicated scene mode and effects, while the P520 opts for a simpler dial that leans into direct exposure control modes (shutter priority, aperture priority, manual).

For working photographers who prefer quick mode switching, the P600 offers slightly more flexibility. However, the P520’s streamlined controls can be a plus if manual exposure is your bread and butter.

Sensor and Image Quality: Small Sensors, Big Decisions

Both cameras use 1/2.3-inch BSI CMOS sensors, but with some specific differences:

• P520: 18-megapixels, sensor area 28.46 mm², ISO 80–3200
• P600: 16-megapixels, sensor area 28.07 mm², ISO 100–6400 (expandable to 12800)

While neither sensor is large compared to APS-C or full frame, Nikon skews slightly higher resolution on the P520. However, the P600’s broader ISO range is attractive for low-light and night photography.

From my testing, both cameras produce respectable images in good light - decent sharpness with the typical bridge camera softness creeping in at the longest zooms.

Dynamic range is quite limited on both, so shadows tend to clip quickly, and highlights can blow out, especially on sunny landscapes or high-contrast portraits. Also, the lack of RAW output means you’re stuck with JPEGs, which restricts post-processing latitude.

Yet, the P600’s expanded ISO gave it a slight edge in dim conditions. At ISO 1600, noise was more controlled than on the P520, permitting some handheld astrophotography attempts.

In portrait situations, skin tones rendered differently: the P520’s slightly denser pixel grid offers more detail, but the P600’s images felt more natural in color reproduction with its improved image processing. That said, neither camera features dedicated face or eye autofocus detection (more on AF later), so sharp focus on close-up portraits can be a challenge.

Display and Viewfinder: Finding Your Framing Sweet Spot

Both pack articulated LCDs with anti-reflective coatings, but here’s the rundown:

• P520: 3.2-inch screen with 921k-dot resolution, fully articulated
• P600: 3.0-inch screen with 921k-dot resolution, fully articulated

The slightly larger screen on the P520 provides a modest advantage when composing and reviewing images, particularly at awkward angles. The anti-reflective treatment helps shooting outdoors but isn’t sufficient under harsh midday sun.

No touchscreen functionality on either model, which, in 2024, feels dated but was standard then.

Both cameras employ electronic viewfinders (EVF), but the resolution is not specified, and in real use, the EVFs feel adequate but a little laggy and grainy compared to modern mirrorless units. The EVF on the P600 edges out in brightness and responsiveness, which comes in handy during fast moving wildlife or sports photography.

Autofocus and Zoom: Hunting Sharp Focus

Now, both cameras use contrast-detection autofocus systems with no phase detection or face/eye tracking, which limits accuracy and speed.

• P520: 9 focus points, no AF tracking, no face detection
• P600: AF single, AF tracking, face detection enabled, unknown number of focus points

While neither excels as a speed demon, the P600’s autofocus system is noticeably better, especially in continuous AF tracking mode. When shooting wildlife or fast sports, I had fewer missed shots with the P600 - the face detection also helped with close-up portraits and street scenes.

Nikon P520 front Nikon P520 screen back Nikon P600 front Nikon P600 screen back

Lens-wise, the P520’s 24-1000mm (41.7x zoom) is very versatile, enough to capture distant wildlife or landscapes with ease. The P600 extends that reach further to 1440mm (60x zoom), which is astounding for a fixed lens bridge camera and opens doors to extreme telephoto use.

On the flip side, pushing the P600 lens beyond 1000mm quickly exposes optical compromises - softness, chromatic aberration, and loss of contrast creep in. The P520’s lens, limited to 1000mm, maintains better overall sharpness throughout the range.

Both cameras feature optical image stabilization - a must-have for the insane zoom lengths to reduce camera shake, especially handheld. In practice, stabilization on the P600 felt a bit more refined, allowing slower shutter speeds at the longest focal lengths.

Shooting Modes, Video, and Special Features

Beyond stills, both cameras shoot Full HD video at 1920x1080, but the P600 offers more frame rate options - including 60p and 50i - compared to the P520’s 30p/25p max.

Stereo sound recording is built-in on both, but no external microphone inputs, so audio capture options are limited.

Both cameras lack 4K or higher video resolutions and both do not support RAW capture - this is a major consideration if you want creative video grading or versatility in post-processing your photos.

The P600 adds built-in Wi-Fi, handy for quick image transfers and remote shooting via smartphone apps. The P520, meanwhile, needs an optional accessory for wireless capability.

Flash-wise, the P600 has a more powerful built-in flash and supports TTL flash metering with preflash monitoring, resulting in better automatic flash exposures. The P520’s flash is more basic.

Battery, Storage, and Connectivity: Practical Considerations

The P600 packs an EN-EL23 battery with a remarkable rated 330 shots per charge, considerably better than the P520’s EN-EL5 battery with 200 shots.

In the field, this translates to less gear carrying and fewer battery swaps - especially important on travel or long wildlife trips.

Both cameras store images on standard SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, with a single slot each.

Connectivity options differ. The P600 supports USB 2.0 and mini HDMI, while the P520 lacks USB but does have HDMI out.

The P520 features built-in GPS for geotagging - a plus for travel and landscape photographers wanting to keep track of location data, where the P600 omits this.

How They Perform Across Photography Genres

I’ve tested these cameras across a variety of disciplines to see which suits which user.

Image Sharpness, Bokeh, and Color Rendition in Portraits

Portraiture is a discipline close to my heart - skin tones, detail, and the elusive “pop” matter a lot. Both cameras use small sensors, limiting shallow depth of field and creamy bokeh.

At their widest apertures (f/3.0 on P520 and f/3.3 on P600), neither delivers the dreamy background separation of larger sensor cameras.

Still, the P600’s face detection and slightly improved color processing make it preferable for casual portraits. I got sharper eye focus more often on the P600 during my in-studio tests, though neither model shines outdoors in harsh sunlight or dim lighting.

Landscape and Travel Photography: Dynamic Range and Handling

In daylight landscapes, both sensors struggle with dynamic range, clipping highlights on bright skies and pushing shadows into darkness.

The 18-megapixel P520 boasts a slight edge in resolution, producing crisper detail on distant trees and rock textures. However, the P600’s higher ISO ceiling allows some flexibility shooting at dawn or dusk.

If I’m trekking or hopping between cities, I appreciate the P600’s longer battery life and built-in Wi-Fi, which facilitate faster sharing and reduce gear weight.

The P520’s GPS tagging is a handy alternative if you like geolocated image catalogs without relying on smartphone logs.

Wildlife and Sports: Zoom Reach and Autofocus Speed Count

For wildlife photographers, the extended zoom range is king.

At 1440mm equivalent, the P600 clearly wins - you can frame distant birds or mammals with no need for bulky telephotos.

However, pushing image quality at 1440mm is a balancing act. Sharpness drops noticeably here compared to the P520’s sharper 1000mm end.

Speed-wise, the P600’s autofocus is decisively better - it locks focus faster with less hunting, thanks to face detection and basic tracking.

Both shoot bursts at 7 frames per second, which is adequate for casual sports and moving subjects but trail far behind dedicated sports cameras.

Still, if you shoot wildlife or sports on a budget, the P600’s combination of reach and AF wins hands down.

Street and Macro: Portability vs Close-Up Precision

Neither camera is particularly discreet for street photography, given their size and zoom lens barrel length. But the P600 feels a bit more cumbersome, mostly due to size and longer lens profile.

Manual focus capabilities do exist on both, helpful when tackling macro subjects or needing precise focus control.

The minimum macro distance of 1cm is impressive - you can get tight close-ups of flowers, insects, or textures.

In close-up work, the stabilized lenses assist handheld shots well, and I preferred the P600’s autofocus for locking onto small subjects, despite no dedicated focus peaking.

Low-Light and Night Astrophotography: ISO and Noise Trade-Offs

Night photography exposes sensor limitations. The P600’s expanded ISO range to 6400 (12800 boosted) gives an important advantage - you can shoot faster exposures handheld or reveal stars with higher gain.

Granted, noise at these ISOs is significant, but noise reduction algorithms help salvage usable images.

The P520 tops out at ISO 3200 with noticeably more grain earlier.

In practical terms, if night or astrophotography excites you as a hobby, the P600 is the better candidate. Just remember that these are bridge cameras with small sensors - spectacular long-exposure astro shots still require specialist gear.

Video Recording: More Options on the P600

Both offer Full HD 1080p video, but the P600 supports more frame rates (including 60p and 50i), smoother slow-motion, and better compression (H.264).

Neither camera features microphone inputs, so audio can be a weak point, particularly if you want external mics for interviews or music.

The P600’s Wi-Fi enables remote control and quicker content uploads, a nice bonus for casual vloggers or travel videographers.

Reliability, Workflow, and Price: Which One Should You Choose?

Both cameras lack RAW support, meaning image files are compressed JPEGs - something I find limiting for serious editing work.

Build quality is typical for this class: mostly plastic, no weather sealing or cold resistance, so keep that in mind if shooting in harsh environments.

Battery life is a significant practical differentiator: 330 shots on the P600 versus 200 on the P520 means the former is better suited to extended outings.

Price-wise, the P520 hovers around $380, making it a terrific budget superzoom option. The P600 costs about $750, almost double - reflecting its upgraded AF, zoom capabilities, and feature set.

Here’s a quick summation of strengths and weaknesses:

Final Verdict: Who Do I Recommend These Cameras For?

If you want a budget-friendly superzoom camera with decent image quality for travel, landscapes, and casual wildlife, and you don’t mind manual focus hunting or limited autofocus speed, the Nikon P520 will serve you well. It’s especially appealing if GPS tracking is important for your workflow or if you prefer a slightly smaller body.

For enthusiasts who crave massive zoom reach, improved autofocus, better low-light shooting, and enhanced video options - willing to invest more - the Nikon P600 is worth the premium. Its longer battery life and connectivity features also give it practical advantages in real-life scenarios.

Neither camera is a pro-level tool - but within their price and sensor-size bracket, both offer good value and versatility.

Summary Table: Quick Specs and Practical Use

I hope this deep dive helps clarify the capabilities and practical differences between these two Nikon bridge superzooms. Whether you prioritize zoom length, autofocus performance, or travel convenience, there is a clear winner depending on your priorities.

For more image samples and detailed comparisons, check out the gallery below.

Nikon P520 front Nikon P520 screen back Nikon P600 front Nikon P600 screen back

Happy shooting!

If you found this comparison helpful, let me know in the comments which camera you’re leaning towards or what features matter most to you. I’ve reviewed thousands of gear pieces and love helping photographers make choices that truly fit their style and needs.