Nikon S640 vs Olympus FE-47

Nikon Coolpix S640 vs Olympus FE-47: An Exhaustive Technical and Practical Comparison for Photography Enthusiasts

In the evolving landscape of compact digital cameras, choices often boil down to nuanced technical specifications, operational ergonomics, and targeted use-case requirements. Both the Nikon Coolpix S640 (hereafter Nikon S640) and Olympus FE-47 emerged around the 2010 mark as small sensor compact cameras aimed primarily at casual artists seeking advanced point-and-shoot simplicity combined with respectable image quality. This comprehensive comparison dissects these models in explicit detail across critical photographic disciplines and operational domains to inform enthusiasts and professionals contemplating compact options or affordable secondary cameras. Our analysis is grounded in methodical metric scrutiny, hands-on operational comprehension, and proven image quality assessment protocols.

Physical Ergonomics, Control Layout, and Portability: Handling Characteristics Matter

Understanding a camera’s physical interface is paramount, particularly for users whose shooting scenarios necessitate rapid handling or prolonged use.

The Nikon S640 presents a notably slim and lightweight footprint, measured at 91 x 55 x 21 mm and weighing 130 grams. In comparison, the Olympus FE-47 is distinctly more substantial - 98 x 61 x 27 mm and tipping the scale at 204 grams. This weight discrepancy factors heavily for photographers prioritizing portability for street and travel photography, where compactness enhances discreteness and user comfort during extended shooting sessions.

Ergonomically, Nikon’s S640 follows a minimalist but refined control layout leveraging an intuitive top control cluster, while Olympus FE-47’s larger frame accommodates a slightly more cumbersome grip that may challenge small-handed users. A direct size and ergonomics side-by-side can be observed here:

Further inspection of the top panels reveals Nikon’s dedicated controls offer streamlined exposure management despite the absence of manual exposure modes. Olympus attempts to provide more control modes, but button positioning and tactile feedback rank lower in user satisfaction during actual deployment.

Verdict: For street photographers and travelers valuing unobtrusive and lightweight setups, Nikon’s S640 handles better. Olympus, while more robust, may feel unwieldy in fast-paced, one-handed shooting.

Sensor Characteristics and Image Quality Mission-Critical Differences

Both cameras deploy 1/2.3" CCD sensors, occupying a physical area of roughly 27.72 mm²; however, Olympus FE-47 offers a nominal resolution edge at 14 megapixels (4288 x 3216 pixels) compared to Nikon’s 12 megapixels (4000 x 3000 pixels). This delta provides Olympus with a slight advantage in image detail preservation and cropping flexibility, theoretically allowing for more substantial enlargement in post-processing workflows.

That said, sensor resolution is only one facet of image quality integrity. Nikon’s use of the more modern Expeed image processor contrasts with Olympus’s TruePic III system. Nikon’s Expeed excels in efficient noise reduction algorithms and color reproduction fidelity. Both models incorporate an anti-aliasing filter which mitigates moiré but modestly softens fine detail.

The comparative sensor specifications and resulting impact on image quality are summarized here:

From practical testing under controlled lighting conditions, Nikon S640 exhibits enhanced low-light performance thanks to its wider maximum aperture (f/2.7 at wide-angle), whereas Olympus FE-47 starts at f/3.5, yielding less light gathering capacity. However, Olympus claims ISO sensitivity up to ISO 1600, while Nikon extends to ISO 6400, though with diminished image quality at upper thresholds across both.

Color depth and dynamic range assessments, while not independently profiled by DxOMark for these particular models, suggest modest performance typical of compact sensor designs at the timeframe of their release. Neither model supports RAW output, restricting post-capture editing latitude to JPEG quality.

LCD Screens and User Interface: Visual Feedback Fluidity

Image composition and review hinge critically on screen quality. Both cameras utilize a fixed 2.7-inch LCD with a resolution of 230k dots – a spec that places them on par in terms of raw display sharpness.

However, Nikon’s LCD displays marginally better daylight visibility owing to superior anti-reflective coatings and subtle brightness control advantages, crucial for outdoor shooting scenarios. Olympus’s LCD, while adequate indoors, tends to wash out under sunlight.

Touchscreen capabilities are absent on both models, consistent with era standards and market segmentation. Live view functionality is supported, yet no advanced autofocus overlays or customizable grid displays are available, potentially impeding composition precision in complex framing scenarios.

A visual comparison of the rear screens supports these observations:

Focus Systems in Real-World Use: Speed, Accuracy, and Usability

Autofocus systems on compact cameras often represent a trade-off between simplicity and creative control. Neither Nikon S640 nor Olympus FE-47 provide manual focus options, consistent with their consumer-oriented positioning.

The Nikon S640 utilizes single-shot autofocus with contrast detection only; Olympus FE-47 adds a modest autofocus tracking feature and multiple focus area selection. In practice, Olympus’s multi-area AF yields marginally better performance on moving subjects, avoiding sluggishness in static point AF modes evident in Nikon’s system.

Neither camera supports face or eye detection AF, eliminating assistance in portraiture scenarios where precisely sharp eyes are desirable. Additionally, Olympus’s macro focus starts at 3 cm, slightly less forgiving than Nikon’s 2 cm minimum focusing distance, which offers greater magnification potential for close-up photography.

Lens and Zoom: Optical Capabilities and Versatility

Both cameras feature non-interchangeable fixed zoom lenses with a 5× optical zoom range. Nikon S640 covers 28-140 mm (equivalent), opening wide at f/2.7 narrowing to f/6.6 at tele. Olympus FE-47 offers a slightly longer reach from 36-180 mm but starts at a narrower f/3.5 aperture.

This difference impacts creative options; Nikon’s wider 28mm equivalent facilitates landscapes and environmental portraits, while Olympus’s longer 180 mm equivalent telephoto extends reach beneficial for casual wildlife or sports snapshots, albeit with a relatively slow aperture limiting low-light efficacy.

Integral optical image stabilization is present only in Nikon’s model, mitigating camera shake at telephoto and low shutter speeds. Olympus lacks any stabilization technology, which constrains handheld shooting ability in subdued lighting.

Performance in Primary Photography Genres and Use Cases

For a holistic understanding, here is an in-depth evaluation organized by photography disciplines noting practical strengths and limitations:

Portrait Photography

• Nikon S640: Faster lens aperture at wide angle supports shallow depth-of-field effects desirable in portraits, although limited sensor size caps bokeh quality. Lack of face/eye detection AF necessitates manual focus precision. Optical IS aids handheld stability for sharper shots.
• Olympus FE-47: Higher sensor resolution marginally improves skin detail capture but slower lens aperture impairs background separation. Multi-area AF aids subject tracking but no dedicated face detection reduces focus accuracy on eyes.

Landscape Photography

• Both cameras’ modest sensor sizes limit dynamic range when shooting high-contrast scenes but Olympus’s 14MP resolution allows better cropping and fine detail capture. Nikon’s wider 28 mm lens angle enables broader scene framing. Neither camera is weather-sealed, restricting rugged outdoor use.

Wildlife Photography

• Olympus’s longer 180mm zoom extends reach, but lack of image stabilization and slower lens limits shutter speed flexibility; subject blur risk increases. Nikon’s stabilized 140mm lens with f/6.6 aperture at telephoto reduces light intake but can deliver steadier shots with tripod/wind protection.

Sports Photography

• Neither model supports high frame rates or advanced autofocus tracking typical of dedicated sports cameras. Olympus’s autofocus tracking is a benefit but is constrained by slow shooting speeds and limited buffer capacity.

Street Photography

• Nikon’s compact size and quiet operation make it more suitable for candid shooting. Olympus’s bulk and slower lens start could attract unwanted attention. Both cameras suffer from limited ISO performance in low light common in street environments.

Macro Photography

• Nikon’s 2 cm macro focus distance facilitates extremely close shots with vivid detail, crucial for flower or insect photography. Olympus starts at 3 cm, less versatile. However, lack of focus bracketing or stacking reduces depth-of-field control.

Night and Astrophotography

• Limited sensor sizes and absence of manual exposure modes in both cameras restrict long-exposure nudges necessary for astrophotography. Nikon’s broader ISO range offers marginal advantages but increased noise limits practical utility.

Video Capabilities

• Nikon supports 720p HD video at 30 fps with Motion JPEG compression; Olympus is limited to 640 x 480 VGA. Neither provides microphone or headphone jacks, restricting audio monitoring and external mic use. No 4K options or advanced stabilization for video.

Travel Photography

• Portability and versatility are critical. Nikon’s lighter weight and optical IS combine to outperform Olympus in travel contexts, especially where extended zoom negatives can impact stability. Battery type (Nikon’s proprietary EN-EL12 vs Olympus’s AA batteries) impacts charging logistics; AA batteries offer easier replacement but potentially lower endurance.

Professional Workflows

• Neither camera supports RAW output, limiting integration into advanced professional workflows requiring extensive image editing. Absence of manual exposure control similarly reduces creative flexibility for professional assignments.

Build Quality and Weather Resistance: Durability Considerations

Neither the Nikon S640 nor Olympus FE-47 offers environmental sealing features such as dustproofing, shock resistance, freezeproofing, or waterproofing. Their compact plastic bodies suffice for everyday casual use but should not be considered rugged or reliable under strenuous conditions. Photographers requiring all-weather reliability will need to seek higher-tier solutions.

Battery Life and Storage Options: Practical Shooting Autonomy

• Nikon S640 employs an EN-EL12 proprietary lithium-ion battery. These batteries generally provide reliable, extended shooting but require recharging and spare unit acquisition.
• Olympus FE-47 uses two AA batteries, which may be alkaline or rechargeable NiMH. While this improves supplementary battery availability globally, it generally results in shorter shooting durations and potential performance variability.

Both cameras utilize standard SD/SDHC cards with one slot; no dual card backup exists, aligning with their entry-level classification.

Connectivity and Wireless Features: Workflow Integration

Neither camera includes wireless connectivity (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC), HDMI output, or GPS modules. USB 2.0 interfaces are provided, sufficient for basic tethered downloading but inadequate for tethered shooting or advanced remote control scenarios.

Price Considerations Relative to Performance

At release and in the current used market, Nikon S640 typically commands a higher price (~$225) compared to the Olympus FE-47, which is often available at extremely low cost or bundled offers due to discontinued status.

Given the Nikon’s advantages in optics, stabilization, and build ergonomics alongside superior low-light capabilities, the premium aligns with tangible benefits. Olympus’s appeal lies predominantly in resolution benefits and longer zoom but is offset by heavier weight and lack of stabilization.

Comparative Synthesis of Raw Performance Scores

Subjective scoring based on aggregated test metrics incorporating focus accuracy, image quality, handling ease, and operational fluidity illustrates Nikon S640’s slight edge.

A genre-specific rating breakdown clarifies functional positioning:

Sample Image Comparison: Real-World Quality Verification

Analysis of side-by-side JPEG outputs reveals Nikon S640’s advantage in color fidelity and low-light noise suppression; Olympus images showcase crisper resolution but suffer from higher noise levels and less effective sharpening.

Nikon S640 front Nikon S640 screen back Olympus FE 47 front Olympus FE 47 screen back

Final Recommendations Based on Photographic Intent

For Advanced Amateurs and Casual Professionals Seeking Versatile Compacts:

• Choose the Nikon Coolpix S640 if you prioritize low-light performance, portability, optical image stabilization, and wider lens coverage critical for travel or street photography. It better handles dynamic environments and provides good value considering ergonomic strengths.

For Users Wanting Maximum Resolution and Telephoto Reach on a Budget:

• The Olympus FE-47 offers higher pixel counts and longer zoom range, beneficial in static landscape or wildlife capture where tripod use can mitigate shake concerns. Its AA battery operation suits travel scenarios where recharging infrastructure is uncertain.

Both Models Are Limited in Professional Use Cases:

• Neither supports RAW capture or advanced manual controls, preventing inclusion in demanding commercial workflows. Their sensor sizes restrict dynamic range and creative latitude, so enthusiasts planning growth should consider mid-range mirrorless or DSLR alternatives.

Concluding Reflections: Balancing Heritage and Practical Realities

While both the Nikon Coolpix S640 and Olympus FE-47 represent mature designs from an era preceding the smartphone camera revolution, they still serve niche photographic roles emphasizing simple usability over exotic feature sets. Buyers today must weigh legacy advantages against evolving expectations for sensor capabilities, autofocus intelligence, and video flexibility.

This detailed examination prioritizes empirically derived insights and avoids consumer-level hyperbole, empowering discerning photographers to align purchase decisions with precise operational needs and creative ambitions.

Article images are sourced to illustrate discussed points and are embedded for direct contextual reference.