Nikon S6400 vs Olympus VG-120: The Ultimate Ultracompact Camera Showdown for Enthusiasts and Pros

As a photographer and gear reviewer myself, I've spent a lot of time with ultracompact cameras in the past decade. These pocket-friendly cameras often serve as easy-to-carry backups or grab-and-go devices when you want something more capable than your smartphone - but still unobtrusive. Today, we’re diving deep into two classic players in this category: the Nikon Coolpix S6400 and the Olympus VG-120.

Even though these cameras debuted nearly a decade ago, they still pop up in used markets and budget-conscious setups. So whether you’re a photography enthusiast looking for a compact secondary camera, a beginner dipping your toes into dedicated cameras, or a professional seeking a lightweight kit, this comparison will give you a real-world feel for their strengths, flaws, and best use cases.

Let’s get into the nitty-gritty, and I’ll also share stories from hands-on tests, value judgments, and actionable advice to help you decide which suits your photography style.

Pocket Size and Handling: Always a Priority for Ultracompacts

At first glance, both cameras sport small, pocketable builds - but the subtleties in design significantly impact handling, especially during extended shooting.

The Nikon S6400 measures 95 x 58 x 27 mm and weighs around 150 grams. In contrast, the Olympus VG-120 is slightly sleeker at 96 x 57 x 19 mm, tipping the scales at 120 grams.

The difference may seem minor, but the Nikon's slightly chunkier body provides a better grip for larger hands, preventing the dreaded “dangling camera syndrome.” Plus, its matte finish offers more friction, whereas the Olympus leans towards a glossy plastic shell - slicker, and potentially more slippery in humid or wet conditions.

If ergonomics is your game, I found the Nikon’s small “clubs for thumbs” (i.e., the rear textured pad and modest thumb grip) aided steadier handheld shots, especially during longer sessions. The Olympus is more of a “slippery fish” that you have to consciously cradle.

On the flipside, the Olympus VG-120’s thinner profile fits more effortlessly into tight pockets or compact bags - handy for street photographers or travelers prioritizing low bulk. So, your preference really hinges on the balance you want between grip versus compactness.

Top-Down Controls: All About Quick Access and Intuition

Next, let's peek at the control layout and usability from the top.

The Nikon packs in physical dials and buttons thoughtfully distributed around the shutter release. It features a dedicated zoom toggle, a button for shooting modes, and playback controls within easy reach of your thumb.

Olympus VG-120, with its minimalist design, only has a zoom rocker and shutter button up top, relying heavily on menus for most settings.

For someone who loves working with physical controls - rapid ISO tweaks, exposure compensation, or switching focus modes - the Nikon’s more tactile layout wins hands down. I’ve noticed during quick-paced shoots (especially events or street photography), fumbling through menus can cost you decisive moments. Nikon’s superior button ergonomics shine here.

Olympus’s stripped-back control scheme might appeal to novices who want straightforward point-and-shoot simplicity but could frustrate experienced photographers wanting more manual control speed.

Sensor and Core Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Ultracompacts aren’t generally champions of ultimate image quality, but sensor technology still sways photo fidelity.

Both cameras share a 1/2.3” sensor footprint (measuring about 6.17 x 4.55 mm) - standard fare in compact cameras to keep costs and sizes down. But the Nikon S6400 sports a 16-megapixel backside-illuminated (BSI) CMOS sensor, whereas the Olympus VG-120 offers a 14MP CCD sensor.

This difference isn’t just alphabet soup: BSI CMOS sensors (like Nikon's) tend to deliver better low-light sensitivity and less noise at higher ISO settings. CCD sensors, while historically favored for color rendering and sharpness, are usually less efficient in low light and consume more power.

Testing side-by-side, Nikon's images show crisper detail retention and cleaner shadows when shooting indoors or in dim conditions. Olympus outputs slightly warmer color tones - sometimes pleasing for portraits but less neutral overall.

The Nikon also handles ISO ranges from 125 to 3200 natively, giving more latitude for action in challenging lighting. Olympus caps at ISO 1600, and noise becomes noticeable earlier.

So from a technical and practical standpoint, the S6400’s sensor offers a noticeable edge in versatility and image quality, especially if you shoot beyond ideal lighting.

Rear LCD Displays: Your Window to the Scene

Since both these cameras lack electronic viewfinders, the rear screen is crucial for composition and menu navigation.

Both feature 3-inch LCD displays, but the Nikon’s screen resolution clocks in at 460k dots, nearly double the Olympus’s 230k dots. The Nikon also sports a touchscreen interface, enhancing menu navigation and touch focus - rare for compacts of this vintage.

This higher resolution means images look sharper and colors richer on Nikon's screen. Olympus’s screen is adequate but shows some pixelation and washout under bright sunlight.

From experience, the touchscreen in Nikon is handy, especially since neither camera has manual focus rings, and you rely on on-screen AF point selection.

For real-world use, Nikon’s screen offers a more pleasurable live viewfinder replacement and smoother settings control, aiding rapid adjustments when shooting. Olympus’s display is serviceable if you’re patient but not the easiest for quick settings scroll.

Lens Specs and Optical Performance: Zoom Versatility vs Low-Light Aperture

Both cameras come with fixed lenses (no interchangeable lens mount), yet their specs diverge enough to impact their photographic reach.

• Nikon S6400: 25-300mm equivalent zoom (12x optical), aperture f/3.1–6.5
• Olympus VG-120: 26-130mm equivalent zoom (5x optical), aperture f/2.8–6.5

Nikon’s extensive zoom range gets you way closer to distant subjects, great for wildlife or events where crowd movement makes getting near tricky. However, the tradeoff is a slower maximum aperture on the telephoto end (f/6.5), meaning less light transmits at long zooms.

Olympus’s lens starts slightly wider at f/2.8 for the wide end, helping better low-light scenes, especially indoors or night street photography. But its shorter telephoto reach caps framing flexibility for distant subjects.

In my portrait shoots under natural window light, Olympus’s f/2.8 lets you get softer bokeh and better subject separation close up. Nikon needs stronger light or slower shutter speeds for the same effect.

But for wildlife or sports glimpses, Nikon’s broader zoom provides more framing options albeit sometimes requiring higher ISO or flash to compensate for smaller apertures.

Autofocus Systems: Speed and Accuracy in the Field

Autofocus (AF) plays a critical role, especially in dynamic shooting. Let’s break down the differing AF capabilities.

• Nikon S6400: Contrast-detection autofocus with face detection and AF tracking
• Olympus VG-120: Contrast-detection autofocus with face detection but no AF tracking

Neither has phase-detection AF, which is more common on DSLRs and mirrorless but rare for these compacts.

Through testing with moving subjects (kids running in parks, pets darting indoors), Nikon’s AF tracking held focus more consistently and quickly reacquired targets. Olympus, limited to static focus points and no tracking, often hesitated or missed focus shifts mid-action.

For sports or wildlife photographers wanting to freeze moments, Nikon’s AF tracking is a meaningful advantage.

For static subjects or casual portraits, both are satisfactory, but Nikon's responsiveness lends an edge when timing counts.

Burst Shooting and Shutter Speed: Who’s Quicker on the Draw?

Continuous shooting is another crucial factor for capturing fleeting moments.

• Nikon S6400 max shutter speed: 1/4000 sec; continuous shooting unspecified but limited
• Olympus VG-120 max shutter speed: 1/2000 sec; continuous shooting unspecified

Neither camera targets burst speed aficionados like pro DSLRs, but Nikon’s faster max shutter speed theoretically benefits freezing extremely fast subjects or shooting wide aperture in bright light.

Both have no continuous AF in burst mode, limiting their ability to track subjects frame-to-frame.

In my timing tests, Nikon offered a slightly snappier shutter response and lower shutter lag, improving reaction times in candid photography.

Bottom line: If raw frame rates or shutter speed extremes matter, neither camera shines, but Nikon has a small edge.

Image Stabilization: Keeping Shots Sharp

Lens or sensor stabilization reduces blur from hand shake, especially at long zooms or low shutter speeds.

• Nikon S6400 offers optical image stabilization (OIS)
• Olympus VG-120 has no image stabilization

In handheld low-light tests, Nikon’s OIS allowed me to shoot several stops slower shutter speeds without noticeable blur. Olympus’s lack of stabilization made sharp handheld shots tricky below 1/60 sec, often necessitating flash or tripod.

If you often shoot in dim environments without support, Nikon’s OIS delivers clear practical benefits.

Macro Photography: Getting Close and Personal

Close-up capabilities often come down to minimum focus distance and lens sharpness.

• Nikon S6400: Macro focus range at 10 cm
• Olympus VG-120: Macro focus range at 7 cm

Olympus’s closer 7-cm minimum focus means you can get more intimate with tiny subjects. However, Nikon’s higher resolution and better sensor noise control balance this by producing finer detail at modest macro distances.

Neither camera supports focus stacking or manual focus bracketing (features common on newer models), but Nikon’s OIS again aids handheld macro sharpness.

Video Capabilities: More Than Just Photos

Although both cameras primarily target still shooters, video is a versatile bonus.

• Nikon S6400 records Full HD 1080p at 30fps, using efficient H.264 codec
• Olympus VG-120 tops out at 720p HD at 30fps, recording Motion JPEG files

Nikon’s superior resolution and modern codec mean smoother videos consuming less storage and easier editing. Unfortunately, neither camera has microphone inputs or advanced video features like slow motion or 4K.

If video quality is a major criterion, Nikon stands noticeably ahead.

Battery Life and Storage: Staying Powered and Accommodating Cards

Both models rely on proprietary lithium-ion batteries:

• Nikon S6400 uses EN-EL19 battery, rated ~160 shots per charge
• Olympus VG-120 uses LI-70B battery, rated similarly at ~160 shots

Neither battery life figure is generous, especially by today’s standards. I recommend carrying spares for all-day shooting.

Both support standard SD/SDHC/SDXC cards but only have single card slots - no dual redundancy.

Wireless Connectivity: Sharing Made Easy or Not?

Despite being early 2010s cameras, connectivity varies considerably:

• Nikon S6400 supports Eye-Fi wireless card connection (Wi-Fi via SD cards)
• Olympus VG-120 has no wireless capabilities

Practically, Nikon’s Eye-Fi compatibility can streamline photo transfers to computers or smartphones - handy in today’s social-sharing culture.

Olympus users must rely on USB cable transfers, which is slower and less convenient.

Durability and Weather Sealing: Should You Worry?

Neither camera offers environmental sealing: no dustproof, waterproof, shockproof, or freezeproof claims.

Treat both as delicate consumer compacts rather than rugged gear.

Price and Value: What Do You Get for Your Money?

As of now:

• Nikon S6400 typically sells in used markets around $150–$250 USD
• Olympus VG-120 is cheaper, often found around $80–$150 USD

Given Nikon’s superior specs (sensor, OIS, zoom, video), the higher price is justified if you demand better all-around performance.

Olympus appeals to those on a tighter budget who want basic point-and-shoot usability.

Performance Ratings and Genre-Specific Scores: Where Each Camera Excels

Let’s take a look at the overall performance metrics as well as how these cameras fare across various photography disciplines.

Portraits

• Nikon’s face detection and AF tracking combined with sharper sensor detail produces more flattering skin tones and more controllable background blur.
• Olympus’s f/2.8 wide aperture helps low-light portraits but limited zoom and weaker sensor fidelity hold it back.

Landscapes

• Nikon wins for higher resolution, better dynamic range, and longer telephoto reach.
• Olympus less ideal due to modest zoom and lower sensor efficiency.

Wildlife and Sports

• Nikon’s faster AF and 12x zoom outperform Olympus’s limited tracking and zoom.
• Burst rates are modest for both but Nikon’s quicker shutter helps.

Street

• Olympus’s smaller body is more discreet.
• Nikon’s faster responsiveness and clearer screen help for quick candid shots.

Macro

• Olympus’s closer macro focusing wins in ease of tight close-ups.
• Nikon’s image quality yields sharper results if you mind the distance.

Night/Astro

• Nikon's BSI CMOS sensor and image stabilization enable better low-light shooting.
• Olympus limited by sensor noise and lack of stabilization.

Video

• Nikon’s HD video at 1080p is a clear advantage over Olympus’s standard-definition 720p.

Travel

• Nikon heavier but more versatile zoom and image quality.
• Olympus lighter and pocket-friendlier - tradeoff between convenience and functionality.

Professional Work

• Neither are professional workhorses.
• Nikon's features give it slight edge as a casual backup or pocket rig.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations: Which Ultracompact Should You Choose?

What’s the takeaway after dissecting these two cameras inside and out?

Choose the Nikon Coolpix S6400 if:

• You want the best possible image quality and sensor performance in a compact body.
• You seek a versatile zoom range (25-300mm) for wildlife, sports, or travel.
• You appreciate faster autofocus tracking and optical image stabilization.
• You value Full HD video with modern codec support.
• You don’t mind carrying a slightly bigger camera for better ergonomics.
• Your budget can stretch to the $150+ used price range.
• You want wireless photo transfer capabilities.

Choose the Olympus VG-120 if:

• You are a tight-budget buyer seeking a basic ultracompact for casual day-to-day shooting.
• You prioritize smaller size and lighter weight for street photography or discreet travel.
• You like the option to get closer in macro with a 7-cm minimum focus distance.
• You mainly shoot in good lighting and don’t need extensive zoom reach.
• You are less concerned about high ISO performance or video quality.
• Your used price targets under $100.

Wrapping Up With Sample Images and Real-World Proof

Below are side-by-side samples from both cameras illustrating their color science and detail retrieval in typical shooting conditions.

These images confirm:

• Nikon’s higher detail resolution and cleaner shadows.
• Olympus’s warmer tones but earlier noise onset.

Both cameras served me well in my testing, but the Nikon S6400 clearly packs more punch and versatility, justifying its higher cost. Olympus VG-120 remains a good step up from smartphones for cheapskates or minimalists.

Ultimately, your choice depends on your photography ambitions and shooting style. I hope this deep dive gives you the clarity you need to make an informed decision.

Happy shooting out there - and remember, the best camera is one you have with you!

If you’re looking to compare these further or need recommendations on current ultracompact models, feel free to reach out. My testing experiences cover thousands of cameras spanning decades, and I’m here to help you navigate your next gear upgrade!