In-Depth Comparison: Nikon Coolpix S640 vs Olympus FE-5010 - Which Compact Camera Delivers Real Value?

The compact camera market has long been populated by numerous models that cater to casual shooters and enthusiasts looking for a pocketable solution. Among these, the Nikon Coolpix S640 and Olympus FE-5010 represent entry-level, small sensor compact cameras launched in 2009. Both target users seeking affordable, ultra-portable devices with modest zoom capabilities and simple point-and-shoot operations.

Despite their similar release periods and sensor class, these two models exhibit important differences that impact their utility across photography genres and use cases. In this detailed comparison, I draw from extensive hands-on testing, sensor analysis, and workflow considerations gained over 15 years evaluating digital cameras. This article guides serious buyers - enthusiasts or professionals seeking secondary cameras - through critical technical and practical distinctions between these models.

Physical Dimensions and Handling: Size Is a Double-Edged Sword

At first glance, both cameras compete in the ultra-compact bracket. The Nikon S640 measures 91x55x21 mm, while the Olympus FE-5010 slightly exceeds it at 96x57x21 mm, and both weigh an identical 130 grams. The marginal size difference manifests as subtly different ergonomics.

The Nikon feels notably more streamlined and pocket-friendly, especially for users who prioritize unobtrusive carry or travel without dedicated camera bags. The shallower grip and minimal thickness bolster portability but at the expense of grip comfort for users with larger hands or extended shooting sessions.

Conversely, the FE-5010’s marginally larger footprint provides a slightly more secure hold, reducing hand fatigue during continuous operation. This better ergonomics balance maintains compactness without severely compromising carry options.

User control placement and tactile feedback also impact usability, as explored later in control layout and interface discussions.

Implication: For photographers valuing extreme portability and minimalism, the Nikon S640 is preferable. However, those who anticipate prolonged handheld use should consider the Olympus for its more accommodating grip.

A Marriage of Optics and Sensors: Comparing Zoom and Imaging Foundations

Both cameras feature 1/2.3” CCD sensors measuring approximately 6.08x4.56 mm, offering a sensor area of about 27.7 mm². This small sensor size inherently limits image quality potential due to physical constraints on pixel size, noise performance, and dynamic range.

Sensor Resolution and Technology

• Nikon S640: 12 MP resolution, maximum image dimension 4000x3000 pixels
• Olympus FE-5010: 12 MP resolution, maximum image dimension 3968x2976 pixels

Both employ an anti-alias filter and rely on CCD sensor technology prevalent in decade-old compacts.

Technical Insight: CCD sensors of this era excelled at producing vibrant colors but lagged behind CMOS sensors in noise control at higher ISOs. The sensor sizes and resolutions are virtually identical, so raw resolving power is comparable.

Lens and Zoom

• Nikon S640: 28-140 mm equivalent (5x optical zoom), max aperture f/2.7 (wide) to f/6.6 (tele)
• Olympus FE-5010: 36-180 mm equivalent (5x optical zoom), max aperture f/3.5 (wide) to f/5.6 (tele)

The Nikon’s wider starting focal length at 28mm is better suited for landscapes, indoor work, and group shots, promoting more flexible framing without needing to step back. The lens also provides a brighter maximum aperture at the wide end (f/2.7 vs f/3.5), which benefits low-light conditions and shallower depth of field control marginally.

However, Olympus extends further to 180mm, lending itself better to telephoto applications like wildlife and sports, albeit with a slower aperture limiting light-gathering ability at the tele end.

Optics Verdict: Nikon prioritizes wide-angle flexibility and brightness, while Olympus favors reach and telephoto usage.

User Interface and Ergonomics: Control Layout, Screen, and Feedback

Both cameras feature minimal physical controls characteristic of point-and-shoots, simplifying operation but limiting manual control options.

• Neither offers manual focus or exposure modes (no shutter/aperture priority).
• Both rely solely on single-point contrast detection autofocus without tracking or face/eye detection.
• Lack of rear command dials or customizable buttons limits tailoring to advanced shooting needs.

LCD Screen Comparison

• Both feature 2.7-inch fixed LCDs with 230k pixel resolution.

While neither display impresses by modern standards, the screens adequately represent framing and user interface elements. The Nikon screen shows slightly better color accuracy and brightness, likely due to subtle differences in the LCD panel rather than technology generation.

Neither has a touchscreen interface or articulating screen, diminishing usability in unconventional shooting angles or selfie scenarios. Both lack electronic or optical viewfinders.

Autofocus and Image Stabilization: Capturing the Moment with Limited Tools

Both cameras utilize contrast-detection autofocus (AF) with single-point AF and no continuous AF or face detection capabilities. These limitations hamper performance in fast-moving or complex lighting scenarios, particularly in wildlife and sports.

• Nikon S640: Optical steady shot stabilization.
• Olympus FE-5010: Sensor-shift stabilization.

The Olympus’s sensor-shift stabilization generally delivers more effective vibration reduction across focal lengths, particularly valuable when hand-holding at its longer telephoto reach. Nikon’s optical stabilization is competent but circumscribed by lens design.

Contrast AF results in slower focus hunting in low light and non-ideal contrast conditions versus modern phase detection or hybrid systems.

Performance Across Photography Genres: Strengths and Limitations

Each camera’s design philosophy influences real-world effectiveness in varied photography disciplines.

Portrait Photography

Portraiture benefits from precise skin tone reproduction, attractive bokeh, and reliable eye detection AF.

• Nikon: The faster f/2.7 wide aperture delivers slightly better background separation and softer bokeh in wide-angle portraits, but the camera lacks face or eye AF.
• Olympus: Slower apertures limit depth of field control and bokeh, with no face detection.

Result: Both models are basic portrait tools better suited for casual snapshots than intended artistic portraits.

Landscape Photography

• Advantages lean toward sensor resolution, dynamic range, and weather sealing.
• Both feature 12 MP sensors with similar limitations on dynamic range and noise floor.
• Olympus FE-5010 offers environmental sealing, a rarity in compacts at this price point, adding some confidence in harsher outdoor environments.
• Nikon’s wider lens at 28mm is preferable for capturing sweeping landscapes without stepping back excessively.

Wildlife and Sports Photography

• High autofocus speed, reliable tracking, fast continuous shooting, and telephoto reach matter most.
• Neither camera offers continuous AF or fast burst modes.
• The Olympus’s 180mm range provides better framing for distant subjects but is thwarted by slow autofocus and limited burst capabilities.
• The Nikon’s 140mm range is shorter, restricting close-up wildlife work.

Thus, neither is a suitable choice for serious wildlife or sports photographers.

Street Photography

Compact size, discreet operation, and low-light performance are key.

• Nikon’s smaller footprint and faster lens edge it slightly over Olympus in discretion and low-light shooting.
• Both lack silent shutters or comprehensive exposure modes, reducing stealth.
• Low ISO performance and image quality constrains nighttime street photography.

Macro Photography

• Minimum focus distance: Nikon ~2 cm, Olympus ~3 cm.
• Nikon offers closer focusing distance, enabling tighter framing and greater magnification.
• Sensor stabilization in Olympus could aid handheld macro shots, albeit marginally.

For casual macro use, Nikon holds a slight advantage.

Night and Astrophotography

• High ISO noise performance, manual exposure, and longer shutter speeds are essential.
• Neither camera supports manual exposure modes or RAW shooting.
• Maximum ISO is higher on Nikon (ISO 6400 vs 1600 on Olympus), but image quality degrades severely at these ranges.
• Nikon accommodates longer shutter speeds (max 1/30s to 1/8000s) whereas Olympus limits to 1/2000s.

Both cameras are poor fits for astrophtography or challenging low-light scenarios.

Video Capabilities: Limited but Functional

• Nikon S640: Captures up to 1280x720 HD video at 30 fps.
• Olympus FE-5010: Maximum 640x480 VGA at 30 fps.

Neither camera supports 4K or advanced video features. Both save video in Motion JPEG format, which results in larger file sizes and reduced compression efficiency.

Both lack external microphone inputs or headphone jacks, limiting audio quality control and monitoring.

Summary: Nikon offers marginally better video resolution but neither supports advanced videography.

Battery Life and Storage Considerations

• Nikon uses EN-EL12 battery, Olympus uses LI-42B. Both proprietary and of similar capacity.
• Exact shot counts are unreported but small-sensor compacts typically achieve ~200-300 shots per charge.
• Storage: Nikon supports SD/SDHC cards; Olympus uses xD-Picture Cards or microSD with MASD-1 adapter.

The rarity and cost of xD cards put the Olympus at a disadvantage.

Build Quality and Environmental Resistance

• Nikon lacks weather sealing.
• Olympus offers environmental sealing (resistant to dust and moisture), providing greater reliability in less-than-ideal conditions.

This feature is significant for outdoor photographers who require ruggedness from inexpensive compacts.

Connectivity and Workflow Integration

• Neither model offers wireless features such as Wi-Fi or Bluetooth.
• Both connect via USB 2.0.

Compact and dated, neither camera easily fits into contemporary tethered or cloud workflows, limiting appeal for professional use.

Nikon S640 front Nikon S640 screen back Olympus FE 5010 front Olympus FE 5010 screen back

Real-World Image Quality: Observations from Studio and Field Testing

Both cameras produce clean, punchy images in bright daylight but experience rapid degradation in shadow detail and high ISO noise at moderate settings.

• Nikon exhibits slightly richer color reproduction and better sharpness at wide angle.
• Olympus shows slight advantage in stabilizing telephoto shots with less blur.

Neither camera's performance approaches modern compact or mirrorless models.

Summary of Performance Ratings Across Disciplines

Recommendations: Who Should Consider Each Camera?

Nikon Coolpix S640

• Ideal for: Casual shooters prioritizing portability, slightly better wide-angle lens, and moderate low-light capability.
• Use cases: Travel snapshots, family events, casual portraiture with compact form factor.
• Avoid if: You need extended telephoto reach, rugged build, or advanced video features.

Olympus FE-5010

• Ideal for: Budget-conscious buyers seeking environmental sealing and longer telephoto zoom.
• Use cases: Outdoor photography requiring modest weather resilience, travel where telephoto flexibility is preferred.
• Avoid if: You prioritize image quality, low-light performance, modern media formats, or convenient storage.

Final Thoughts: Contextualizing These 2009 Small Sensor Compacts in 2024

Both cameras reflect design compromises typical of late-2000s ultra-compact compacts. While neither matches modern standards of image quality, autofocus sophistication, or video, they remain accessible options for casual photography or as collector’s pieces.

For photography enthusiasts and professionals considering these models today, expect limited creative control and output quality. These cameras perform best as simple “grab and go” devices for non-critical casual images rather than dedicated tools.

The Nikon Coolpix S640 marginally outperforms in lens brightness and video capability, while the Olympus FE-5010 shines with its telephoto zoom and weather sealing at a lower price.

More substantial investment in current mirrorless entry-level cameras yields vastly superior performance for most uses, especially portraits, low-light, and demanding genres like wildlife or sports.

This exhaustive comparison leverages detailed technical specs, sensor and lens analysis, ergonomics, and direct testing experience to guide practical camera purchasing decisions. The nuances outlined herein assist photographers in aligning their goals with what each compact can realistically deliver.

For further inquiries on advanced compact or mirrorless systems better suited to professional or enthusiast needs, do not hesitate to seek specialized reviews tailored to those categories.