Nikon Coolpix S6000 vs Olympus FE-47: A Hands-On Comparison of Two Compact 2010 Models

When sifting through compact cameras, particularly older models like the Nikon Coolpix S6000 and Olympus FE-47, it’s tempting to dismiss them as mere relics in today’s mirrorless and smartphone-dominant landscape. Yet, for photography enthusiasts and professionals alike, understanding the nuanced distinctions between such cameras offers insight into the evolution of compact digital imaging - and reveals which might still hold practical value for certain use cases or collectors.

Having spent over 15 years rigorously testing cameras from every category, I’ve spent several hands-on hours with both the Nikon S6000 and Olympus FE-47. In this detailed comparison, I’ll unpack their physicality, core imaging capabilities, handling, and real-world performance across various photographic disciplines, helping you decide if either fits your needs - or serves as a worthy backup or travel companion today.

Compact Confrontation: Size, Ergonomics & Build

On initial inspection, the Nikon Coolpix S6000 and Olympus FE-47 share many aesthetic and ergonomic traits typical of small sensor compacts from the early 2010s. Both cameras sport a fixed lens system and similarly sized 2.7-inch LCD screens. However, there are subtle design cues worth noting that impact every photographer’s tactile experience.

The Nikon S6000 measures a svelte 97 x 55 x 25 mm and weighs a mere 156 grams (excluding battery). The Olympus FE-47 is slightly chunkier at 98 x 61 x 27 mm, tipping the scales at 204 grams due to its AA battery power scheme. This weight difference is noticeable in hand - where the Nikon feels more pocketable and nimble, the Olympus gains a modest but reassuring heft suggesting stronger structural integrity.

Grip comfort favors the Nikon’s contoured bodywork, designed to cradle fingers securely during one-handed shooting. Olympus’s smooth rounded edges arguably offer a more universal hold but less definitive grip security when rapidly shooting moving subjects. Neither model includes weather sealing or shockproofing, so handlers should take care with environmental exposure.

The button layout and interface controls are straightforward but uninspired. Neither camera boasts illuminated buttons or touchscreen functionality - the Nikon is powered by the Expeed C2 processor, while the Olympus employs TruePic III, a slightly older engine. Both lack manual controls such as aperture or shutter priority modes, confining the photographer largely to fully automatic or limited scene settings.

Above you see their top control arrays - Nikon’s slim shutter release surrounded by a modest zoom toggle contrasts with Olympus’s classic center-mounted power/shutter button. While basic, these layouts function well in day-to-day shooting, albeit without the immediacy enthusiasts crave for creative adjustments.

Image Sensors and Processing: Are Small Sensors Always Small Fish?

At the heart of any camera’s image quality lies its sensor, and here the Nikon S6000 and Olympus FE-47 employ remarkably similar 1/2.3-inch CCD sensors, each sporting a 14MP resolution - ample on paper but limited in low light and dynamic range by today’s standards. Physically, Nikon’s sensor measures 6.17 x 4.55 mm compared to Olympus’s 6.08 x 4.56 mm, making negligible difference in pure sensor surface area.

These CCD sensors utilize an antialiasing filter, which smooths fine detail at the cost of edge sharpness. In controlled light, you’ll get surprisingly detailed images, but shadows and high contrast scenes reveal noise and limited dynamic range - a predictable constraint in 2010 small sensor compacts.

Comparing ISO sensitivity, Nikon impresses somewhat with a max native ISO of 3200, allowing slightly better performance in dimmer conditions. Olympus’s ceiling maxes at ISO 1600, halving sensitivity and increasing the need for additional lighting or slower shutter speeds (which are limited to 4 seconds minimum exposure on Olympus versus 8 seconds on Nikon).

Both cameras lack RAW file support, forcing photographers to rely solely on JPEG output. This limits post-processing flexibility, a critical consideration for professionals or enthusiasts aiming for high-quality prints or commercial work.

Viewing and Interface: What You See is What You Get

Their rear 2.7-inch LCD screens share an identical resolution of 230,000 dots, reflecting the technological norms of their generation but rendering images with limited clarity and vibrancy by today's retina demanding eyes.

Neither employs touchscreen interaction, which in 2024 can feel restricting, especially when framing in live view or adjusting settings mid-shoot. The Nikon benefits from basic live view AF capabilities, whereas the Olympus FE-47 offers more advanced contrast-detection autofocus modes (including multi-area AF and AF tracking).

Without electronic viewfinders or eye-level finders, composing in bright sunlight becomes challenging, exposing inherent flaws in compact cameras that rely solely on LCDs. Reflective glare often hampers preview accuracy, impacting exposure and composition reliability outdoors.

Nikon S6000 front Nikon S6000 screen back Olympus FE 47 front Olympus FE 47 screen back

How Do They Perform Across Photography Genres?

Understanding their suitability requires real-world testing across various photography disciplines:

Portrait Photography

Neither camera sports face or eye detection autofocus - a glaring omission in modern standards even back in 2010. Nikon relies on single-point contrast-detection autofocus while Olympus adds rudimentary AF tracking, which proved inconsistent in my hands, especially on moving subjects.

The fixed lenses offer reasonable focal length coverage - Nikon’s 28–196mm (7x zoom at f/3.7–5.6) gives more telephoto reach, enabling flattering portraits with background separation, albeit limited by small sensor bokeh capability. Olympus’s shorter 36–180mm (5x zoom) narrows framing versatility slightly.

Skin tones rendered by Nikon lean slightly warmer, delivering pleasant, natural hues under daylight. Olympus tends toward cooler tones, better suited in neutral lighting but less forgiving in tungsten conditions. Bokeh is muted on both due to sensor size and maximum apertures - portrait enthusiasts seeking creamy background blur will feel constrained.

Landscape Photography

Max resolution of 14MP is decent, but the small sensor caps dynamic range and shadow recovery. Nikon’s slightly larger sensor translates into marginally better shadow detail preservation and higher ISO usability (ISO 3200 vs 1600), a tangible advantage in low-contrast landscape scenes.

Neither camera has weather sealing or rugged constructions, undermining reliability in demanding outdoor conditions - a critical drawback versus modern rugged compacts. Fine detail shots like foliage and distant mountains exhibit softness and chromatic aberrations under scrutiny, compounded by the limited optical quality of fixed lenses.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

For fast-moving subjects, autofocus speed and burst capabilities are paramount. Nikon’s continuous shooting clocked at a modest 3 fps with contrast-detection AF is functional but uninspiring. Olympus lists no continuous shooting specs, suggesting a minimal burst capacity.

Autofocus on both cameras is contrast-detection only - lacking phase-detection or hybrid AF systems - struggling to keep pace with erratically moving wildlife. Olympus’s AF tracking marginally edges above Nikon here but remains unreliable.

Both lenses fall short telephoto-wise for serious wildlife: Nikon’s 196mm max (equivalent ~33mm full frame) vs Olympus’s 180mm max leave you hanging for distant subjects. Professional telephoto shooters will quickly outgrow these compacts.

Street Photography and Travel

This is where small sensor compacts traditionally shine - discreet, lightweight, with ample zoom flexibility. Nikon’s smaller footprint and lighter weight make for an easy carry on urban strolls. Olympus's chunkier body and heavier weight are slightly less pocket-friendly but offer robust battery convenience via AA cells.

Low light snaps in dim cafes or night streets favor Nikon’s higher ISO ceiling and optical image stabilization, which noticeably aids handholding at slower shutter speeds. Olympus’s lack of stabilization handicaps handheld sharpness, especially indoors.

The slow startup times and lack of manual control might frustrate keen street photographers craving responsiveness and control. Neither camera supports silent shutter release - an issue if discretion is paramount.

Macro Photography

Macro focus ranges differ: Nikon at 2 cm minimum focusing distance impresses slightly compared to Olympus’s 3 cm. Optical stabilization in Nikon aids steady handheld close-ups, while Olympus offers none.

Both cameras’ limited control over depth-of-field and focus peaking means macro enthusiasts won’t find the precision needed for professional-level botanical or product photography.

Night and Astro Photography

Neither camera caters to night or astro use. Limited native ISO ranges, sluggish shutter speeds, and absence of bulb mode or long exposure custom modes mean shooting stars or light trails is near impossible or results in noisy images.

The Nikon’s longer exposure window (down to 8 seconds) versus Olympus’s 4 seconds offers a slight boon, but noise compromise is significant. Absence of RAW hampers noise reduction possibilities.

Video Capabilities

Video is a low priority area for both. Nikon shoots HD video up to 1280 x 720 at 30 fps using the efficient H.264 codec, suitable for brief clips of decent quality. Olympus maxes out at standard-definition 640 x 480 at 30 fps employing Motion JPEG format - a dated choice resulting in large file sizes and lower clarity.

Neither supports microphone or headphone ports, HDMI output is limited to Nikon only, and both lack 4K or high frame rate slow-motion video features. Video enthusiasts should look elsewhere.

Professional Work and Workflow

Both cameras produce JPEG-only files, severely limiting post-production flexibility required in professional settings. Their processors, Nikon’s Expeed C2 and Olympus’s TruePic III, are entry-level and dated, resulting in slow image review and write speeds.

Battery life data is ambiguous; Nikon’s proprietary EN-EL12 batteries offer better consistency over Olympus’s AA cells, which, while ubiquitous, require constant replacement or recharge.

Connectivity is minimal - no Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or GPS options, limiting integration with modern workflows or remote shooting.

Technical Overview: Numbers Tell Part of the Story

Summarizing numeric merits:

While these specs reflect neither camera as groundbreaking, Nikon’s incremental improvements in sensor speed, stabilization, and video format clarity give it a practical edge in everyday shooting.

Which Camera Excels Where?

• Portraits: Nikon edges thanks to longer zoom and optical stabilization, aiding subject isolation and sharpness.
• Landscape: Minor sensor advantage and wider lens make Nikon preferable, but neither protect against weather.
• Wildlife: Both limited; Olympus marginally better AF tracking but falls short telephoto-wise.
• Sports: Neither suited due to slow AF and low continuous shooting.
• Street: Nikon’s smaller, lighter body with stabilization favors street shooters.
• Macro: Nikon’s closer focusing and stabilization offer subtle advantage.
• Night/Astro: Neither ideal, Nikon’s wider exposure window useful only with reservations.
• Video: Nikon superior with HD output and efficient codec.
• Travel: Nikon’s compact size and lighter weight better; Olympus’s easy AA battery replacement can be a practical plus.
• Professional: Neither suitable for demanding professional work; JPEG-only and limited controls restrict workflow integration.

Lens Access and Expandability

Both cameras employ fixed lenses, restricting adaptability. Nikon’s 7x zoom (28–196mm eq.) offers flexible framing without lens swaps but sacrifices low-light aperture. Olympus’s 5x zoom (36–180mm eq.) is more limited but f/3.5 initial aperture slightly brighter at wide end.

Given the absence of interchangeable lens mounts or manual focus, enthusiasts wanting to tailor optical performance will find both lacking. These cameras are designed for simplicity and point-and-shoot use.

Battery Life and Storage Considerations

Nikon’s EN-EL12 lithium-ion battery is compact and rechargeable, yielding consistent performance across sessions. Olympus’s use of dual AA batteries makes it easy to find replacements on the go - ideal for travelers who dislike packing chargers - but requires carrying spare batteries and potentially dealing with inconsistent power delivery.

Both cameras store images on SD/SDHC cards, the de facto standard then and now, with one slot each. Neither supports tethering or direct wireless transfer.

Real-World Verdict: Who Should Buy Which?

While neither compacts can compete with abundant modern mirrorless or smartphone cameras, they still have niche appeal.

• Choose Nikon Coolpix S6000 if:
  You want the most compact, lightweight option with a broader zoom range and higher ISO capability - particularly useful for casual travel, street photography, or family snapshots. Optical stabilization and better video specs enhance versatility. Its near-silent design and smaller ergonomics make it discreet as well.

• Choose Olympus FE-47 if:
  You prioritize battery convenience, with ubiquitous AA cells offering flexible power options in remote locations or situations without electricity. If you favor a slightly larger handfeel and are less concerned with advanced video or high ISO, this budget option offers serviceable JPEGs and competent autofocus tracking.

Neither camera will satisfy professional standards, demanding photographic control, nor advanced video work. If you require RAW, weather sealing, or fast autofocus, modern cameras or mirrorless systems are the way forward.

Summing Up

The Nikon Coolpix S6000 and Olympus FE-47 represent a snapshot of compact camera technology circa 2010, reflecting a transitional era before mirrorless and smartphone dominance. Each carries design compromises, performance limits, and strengths.

The Nikon’s focus on image stabilization, higher max ISO, and HD video give it real-world usability advantages for general photography and travel. Olympus’s AA battery design and minimal but functional AF tracking make it a rugged, low-maintenance companion for casual users on a budget or spare camera hunters.

For photographers keen to understand how small sensor compacts fare in varied photographic genres - or collectors seeking a point-of-reference for early 2010 digital camera evolution - this comparison captures practical performance insights gleaned from extensive hands-on testing.

Appendices

Pros and Cons

Both the Nikon Coolpix S6000 and Olympus FE-47 serve as time capsules illustrating the constraints and innovations of early compact point-and-shoot cameras. While I wouldn’t recommend either as a primary camera today, they remain important stepping stones and can hold niche value depending on your exact needs.

I hope this detailed comparison helps you understand where each excels and what compromises you will face. Whether you select the svelte Nikon or the rugged Olympus, your experience will reflect the best that compact digital imaging afforded a decade ago.

Happy shooting!