Nikon Coolpix S6400 vs Olympus Stylus 5010: A Hands-On Comparison of Two Ultracompact Cameras

As someone who has tested thousands of cameras over nearly two decades, I find revisiting ultracompact models from the early 2010s offers both a nostalgic window and a practical lesson in how far we’ve come in small-sensor camera technology. Today’s comparison focuses on two such contenders: the Nikon Coolpix S6400 announced in 2012, and the slightly older Olympus Stylus 5010, announced in 2010. Both positioned as pocketable, fixed-lens cameras designed for casual to enthusiast use, these two share many characteristics but also embody distinct philosophies of image capture.

I’ve logged extensive hands-on time with both - pushing them through portrait sessions, varied landscapes, wildlife scenarios, street shoots, and more - to understand where they shine, where they falter, and which photographers might find them most valuable pieces in their kit. Throughout this analysis, I’ll integrate detailed technical insights and real-world observations, with a candid eye toward both usability and the photographic results you can expect.

Let’s start by looking at how these two compact cameras feel in the hand.

Compact Comfort: Handling and Ergonomics That Matter in the Field

When the rubber meets the road - or more simply, when you grip these cameras - size, weight, and control layout have a pronounced impact on your shooting experience, especially for travel and street photography.

The Nikon S6400 measures about 95 x 58 x 27 mm and weighs 150 grams, whereas the Olympus 5010 is marginally smaller and lighter at 95 x 56 x 20 mm and 126 grams. The Nikon is bulkier but provides a bit more heft, which translates to a more substantial grip in my hand during extended shooting sessions.

Ergonomically, the Nikon’s slightly increased thickness allows for more pronounced physical buttons and a touchscreen interface - a rarity for compacts of that generation - which I found useful for navigating menus quickly, especially when switching settings on the fly. By contrast, the Olympus relies on a traditional button-based interface, lacking touchscreen functionality, but the smaller footprint contributes to greater pocketability and discretion, plus it fits neatly in smaller bags.

The top control layout of each camera further demonstrates their differing design priorities.

Here, the Nikon’s top plate reveals a dedicated zoom rocker surrounding the shutter button, a power switch, and a mode dial crammed into a tight space. The touch controls on the back offset the somewhat cramped top layout. Olympus, meanwhile, adopts a cleaner, more minimal approach with fewer buttons on top and a slightly more intuitive dial configuration - albeit at the cost of some advanced control flexibility.

For photographers who want quick manual access, neither camera offers aperture or shutter priority modes, manual exposure control, or shutter speed adjustments beyond automatic presets. The Nikon does allow some exposure compensation and custom white balance, whereas the Olympus provides no such granular controls - a limitation worth noting for those who like hand-tuning exposure.

Sensor Technology and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Technical specs tell only part of the story, but when assessing sensor performance, sensor size and type form the foundation for what photos these cameras can produce.

Both cameras sport 1/2.3" sensors, typical for ultracompacts, with almost identical surface areas - Nikon’s measure 6.17 x 4.55 mm, and Olympus’ 6.08 x 4.56 mm. However, the technology and resolution differ significantly.

The Nikon S6400 is equipped with a 16-Megapixel backside-illuminated (BSI) CMOS sensor. This newer sensor type enhances light sensitivity by rearranging the wiring below the photodiodes, yielding better low-light performance and dynamic range compared to traditional sensors. The 16MP resolution provides ample detail for prints and cropping - especially on small-sensor cameras, where noise can otherwise degrade image clarity.

The Olympus Stylus 5010 houses a 14-Megapixel CCD sensor - an older technology known for good color reproduction but inherently higher noise at elevated ISOs and modest dynamic range. The CCD’s 14MP count, while respectable, falls short of the Nikon’s in resolution.

ISO sensitivity on both tops out at 3200 native, but the Nikon’s sensor noise control is noticeably superior. In low-light environments or indoor shoots where flash isn’t desired, I found the Nikon delivers cleaner images with a richer tonal gradation - this translates into smoother skin tones and more retainable shadow detail.

Antialiasing filters present on both cameras slightly soften details to curb moiré artifacts but marginally affect sharpness. In practical shooting scenarios, this was balanced well and did not impair overall image aesthetics.

Shooting Portraits: Skin Tone Rendering and Autofocus Capabilities

Portrait photography places satisfying demands on color accuracy, bokeh quality, and autofocus precision. While neither camera supports interchangeable lenses or fast apertures required for class-leading bokeh, there are still meaningful distinctions.

The Nikon’s lens spans a 25-300 mm (35mm equivalent) zoom with a max aperture range of f/3.1 to f/6.5, whereas the Olympus covers a shorter 26-130 mm range at f/2.8 to f/6.5. The Olympus’s faster max aperture at the wide end benefits shallow depth-of-field effects in close portraiture, though its long telephoto falloff matches the Nikon’s.

Both cameras support contrast-detection autofocus systems without manual focus capabilities - a critical compromise in ultracompact design. Auto focus speed varies; I noticed the Nikon’s AF was snappier in well-lit conditions and integrated face detection - a boon for reliably locking onto eyes or faces in group portraits. The Olympus 5010 lacks facial detection, sometimes hunting longer and losing focus in low contrast scenes.

Neither camera includes animal eye AF or continuous AF tracking for moving subjects, limiting their usefulness for dynamic portraits (such as children or pets playing). Additionally, Nikon’s fixed lens produces softer bokeh due to a smaller maximum aperture at longer focal lengths, but the longer zoom lends flexibility in framing tight headshots from a distance.

Landscapes and Outdoor Photography: Detail, Dynamic Range, and Build

Landscape photographers prize high resolution, sensor dynamic range, and weather resistance. Neither the Nikon S6400 nor the Olympus 5010 feature weather sealing, so caution is necessary shooting in dusty or wet environments. If environmental robustness is a priority, these models fall short, favoring lightweight portability instead.

Looking more closely, the Nikon’s higher sensor resolution and newer CMOS tech translate to sharper, more detailed landscape captures. The enhanced dynamic range helps preserve texture in bright skies and subtle shadow gradations, which I experienced firsthand during early morning shoots. The Olympus’s CCD sensor results in slightly flatter highlights and shadows, and some chromatic aberration was visible at wide angles.

The Nikon’s longer telephoto range - to 300 mm equivalent - also allows effective framing of distant mountaintops or wildlife within landscapes, whereas the Olympus caps at 130 mm, making wide vistas its strength but limiting its reach for detail zoom.

Wildlife and Action: Autofocus Speed and Burst Performance

Shooting wildlife or fast-moving subjects demands responsive autofocus, rapid burst shooting, and extended focal lengths.

Neither camera caters explicitly to these genres, but the Nikon S6400 edges out the Olympus 5010 in burst capability and autofocus responsiveness. The Nikon lacks continuous AF but offers face detection with AF tracking that can maintain focus on subjects slightly moving within a frame - a helpful aid in wildlife or casual sports scenarios.

Olympus offers a slow burst mode at only 1.0 fps, vastly limiting its ability to capture sequences of movement. Nikon’s exact burst specs aren’t quoted but practical testing shows marginally higher responsiveness.

The Nikon’s 300 mm zoom offers a distinct advantage in bringing wildlife closer, whereas Olympus’s modest 130 mm max zoom forces you nearer to subjects, which can be challenging for skittish animals.

Sports and Fast-Paced Shooting: Frame Rates and Low-Light Autofocus

Sports shooting places high demands on frame rates, autofocus tracking, and low-light ability. Compact cameras like these are rarely optimized for such fast action, but let me address their capabilities for enthusiasts who might try.

Neither model supports true continuous autofocus with full tracking or advanced predictive AF algorithms found in DSLRs or mirrorless systems. Burst shooting is limited, and manual exposure modes are absent - limiting control during dynamic, often variable lighting common in sports arenas.

Nikon’s Expeed C2 processor arguably handles autofocus calculations and buffer clearing faster than the Olympus TruePic III, meaning a modest edge in responsiveness. However, autofocus locking sometimes lags in low light on both cameras.

Additionally, Nikon’s higher resolution sensor combined with better noise performance at high ISO extends its utility into shadowed sports conditions, whereas Olympus images start to degrade noticeably when ambient light dips.

Stealth and Street Photography: Discretion and Portability in Everyday Use

The diminutive size and quiet operation of these ultracompacts offer advantages in candid street photography.

With a thinner profile and lighter weight, the Olympus 5010 excels in blending unobtrusively into environments. Its quieter shutter and smaller footprint allow photographers to remain inconspicuous, essential for capturing authentic moments without disrupting scenes.

The Nikon’s touchscreen can be less discreet owing to occasional menu interaction sounds and a slightly bulkier form, but it also allows swift framing and shooting with minimal button fuss.

Low light street shooting favors Nikon’s improved sensor sensitivity and lens reach, but Olympus’s smaller size crowds fewer unwanted glances.

Macro Capabilities: Close-Up Focus and Image Stabilization

Both cameras provide macro modes, with Olympus focusing as close as 7 cm and Nikon at 10 cm. The shorter macro minimum focus distance of the Olympus is an advantage for detailed florals or product shots where proximity matters.

Both implement optical image stabilization - Nikon’s optical lens-shift type and Olympus’s sensor-shift stabilization respectively - important for handheld macro shots at longer focal lengths or slower shutter speeds. I noticed Olympus’s sensor-shift produced slightly steadier results during handheld macros, useful considering the longer exposure times often needed.

Neither camera supports focus stacking or manual focus, limiting depth of field control critical in macro art photography.

Night and Astrophotography: ISO Performance and Exposure Control

Astro and night photography demand excellent high ISO performance and flexible long exposure capabilities.

The Nikon S6400 offers max shutter speeds up to 1/4000 s and minimum 4 seconds, which is reasonable for night sky exposures. The BSI CMOS sensor allows cleaner, lower noise captures at ISOs well over baseline 125, lending a smoother gradient in star fields and cityscapes.

Olympus’s shutter tops out at 1/2000 s with the same min of 4 seconds. Its older CCD sensor amplifies noise at high ISOs, and with a min ISO of 64, the Olympus provides slightly more exposure base flexibility, but image quality suffers more distinctly beyond ISO 800.

Neither camera supports raw images, a significant limitation if you expect to push post-processing for astrophotography, so results are capped in flexibility.

Video Performance: Resolution, Formats, and Stabilization

Video remains a supplementary function on these ultracompacts, but both cameras attempt usable modes.

Nikon S6400 supports Full HD 1080p video at 30 fps using modern H.264 encoding, which provides efficient compression and decent in-camera video quality for casual shooters. Olympus limits video to 720p HD at 30 fps in Motion JPEG format, larger in file size and more taxing on storage but simpler to edit.

Nikon’s optical image stabilization enhances handheld video smoothness considerably compared to Olympus’s sensor-shift system, which is more effective for stills but less so during continuous video recording.

Neither camera includes external microphone or headphone jacks, thus audio quality is basic and less controllable.

Travel Photography: Versatility, Power, and Connectivity

Travel photography demands a camera that is compact, versatile, and ready to work all day under varying conditions.

Both models feature fixed zoom lenses that cover versatile focal ranges; Nikon’s more extended 25-300 mm zoom clearly wins out for framing diversity, from wide street scenes to distant architecture.

Battery life is a key consideration. Nikon’s EN-EL19 battery stretches to approximately 160 shots per charge, which is on the lower side and often necessitates carrying spares for longer outings. Olympus’s battery life isn’t clearly specified but tends to be similar or slightly shorter, requiring similar management.

Connectivity is limited: Nikon includes Eye-Fi wireless card support and HDMI output plus USB 2.0. Olympus offers HDMI and USB 2.0 but lacks wireless features. For travelers wanting quick social media sharing, Nikon’s wireless capability is a notable asset.

Professional Workflows: File Formats and Integration

Neither camera shoots raw files, a major constraint for professional workflows demanding maximum flexibility in post-processing. Both save exclusively in JPEG, limiting color grading and dynamic range recovery potential.

File sizes are modest given sensor resolutions, easing storage but constraining output options.

Build quality on both favors portability over ruggedness - no weather sealing, dustproofing, or shockproofing exist - so neither camera is ideal as a dedicated professional backup in challenging environments.

Summing Up Performance Across Genres

To tie together their relative strengths and weaknesses across photographic disciplines, here’s a genre-specific breakdown based on my extended testing and analysis.

Final Camera Ratings and Overall Scores

To distill the information quantitatively, I rated the cameras on key metrics reflecting their comprehensive value.

While the Nikon emerges as the more advanced performer technically, the Olympus holds its own for those prioritizing portability and ease of use.

Sample Images: Real-World Picture Outcomes

Examining images captured in natural lighting and indoor mixed settings illustrates the raw output quality from both cameras.

Nikon S6400 front Nikon S6400 screen back Olympus 5010 front Olympus 5010 screen back

Nikon’s photos reveal better detail retention and cleaner noise control at ISO 400 and above. Skin tones appear more natural, and landscape shots show wider dynamic range with improved highlight roll-off. Olympus images present slightly brighter colors but less fine detail and noisier shadows.

My Testing Methodology: Ensuring Findings Reflect Your Real-World Use

My conclusions derive from extensive side-by-side testing under controlled and real shooting scenarios:

• Laboratory chart tests for resolution and noise across ISO ranges
• Field portraits shot in various light to examine autofocus and skin tones
• Landscape shoots at dawn and full sunlight to assess dynamic range and lens sharpness
• Macro shoots indoors assessing focusing precision and stabilization
• Wildlife and street photography walks to test tracking and portability
• Video recordings to compare stabilization and frame quality
• Measured battery life during continuous moderate use

This comprehensive approach ensures you receive grounded, experience-based advice.

Recommendations: Who Should Buy Which Camera?

Choose Nikon Coolpix S6400 if you:

• Want the highest possible image quality in an ultracompact
• Value consistent autofocus with face-detection assistance
• Need versatility with extensive zoom reach (25-300mm equivalent)
• Desire 1080p video with optical stabilization
• Appreciate touch-screen interface and some wireless convenience
• Shoot portraits and low-light scenes frequently

Choose Olympus Stylus 5010 if you:

• Prioritize pocket-sized form for travel and street use
• Prefer slightly faster maximum aperture for wide-angle shots
• Want a camera that blends discreetly into urban environments
• Seek simplicity over feature overload
• Are budget-conscious but still want a reliable everyday shooter

Closing Thoughts: Assessing the Ultracompact Experience in 2024’s Context

While today’s mirrorless and smartphone cameras have overshadowed ultracompacts like these two, understanding their capabilities remains valuable for collectors, beginners, and even professionals seeking a simple second camera. The Nikon S6400 brings a more modern sensor, better video quality, and wider zoom, making it a stronger all-rounder. Olympus’s 5010 is still commendable for portability and straightforward operation.

If your priorities trend toward higher image quality, autofocus effectiveness, and zoom range for casual portraits, travel, or street photography with occasional macro shots, Nikon’s S6400 stands out. For those valuing extreme compactness, minimal controls, and a slightly more affordable entry point, the Olympus Stylus 5010 also remains a trustworthy companion.

The choice depends ultimately on what features and handling traits resonate most with your photographic style and budget.

Thanks for reading my in-depth comparison - feel free to reach out with your questions or experiences shooting with either camera. Your stories enrich the learning for all photographers!