Nikon S6400 vs Sony W560

Two Ultracompact Contenders: Nikon Coolpix S6400 vs Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W560

When searching for a portable, all-in-one camera, ultracompacts have long been a go-to choice for casual snapshots and travel companions. The Nikon Coolpix S6400, announced in late 2012, and the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W560, showcased a year earlier in 2011, are both classic representatives of this category. Though modest by today’s mirrorless standards, these cameras were designed to offer convenient zoom ranges and image stabilization in pocket-friendly bodies.

Having spent many hours testing ultracompacts along various criteria over my 15+ years of reviewing, I picked these two for a side-by-side examination. This article delivers an in-depth, hands-on comparison: think of it as an expert guide to understanding their real-world capabilities, design philosophies, and best-suited photographic pursuits. Whether you aim to capture family portraits, landscapes on vacation, or casual street moments, I’ll dissect these models with an eye toward practical performance, ergonomics, image quality, and value.

How Compact Can You Get? Handling and Build Quality

Let’s start with first impressions - size, weight, and handling - critical since these factors often dictate if you’ll carry a camera everywhere or leave it behind.

Both cameras nestle snugly in hand, but the Nikon S6400 and Sony W560 differentiate subtly:

• Nikon S6400 measures approximately 95 x 58 x 27 mm and weighs 150 grams.
• Sony W560 is slightly sleeker with dimensions of 94 x 56 x 19 mm and tips the scale at 110 grams.

These fractions translate into a noticeably slimmer feel in Sony’s favor - especially if you prize uninterrupted pocket carry. However, the Nikon’s slightly thicker profile allows for a more substantial grip. During extended shooting sessions, I found the S6400’s body less prone to hand fatigue because it felt more secure, despite being heavier.

Build-wise, neither model offers weather sealing or ruggedization, so both should be treated as gentle companions rather than adventure pros. Their plastic constructions are typical for ultracompacts, but with enough solidity to survive daily use.

Overall, if ultra-portability and discreetness dominate your criteria, Sony’s W560 wins the portability battle. If steady in-hand confidence is more important, Nikon’s S6400 nudges ahead.

Top-Deck Controls and Intuitive Navigation

Beyond shape, how the cameras handle in action depends heavily on button layout and menu systems.

Both cameras embrace straightforward point-and-shoot philosophies. Nikon’s S6400 features a minimal top plate with a power button and shutter release encircled by zoom rocker, augmented by a modest mode dial. Sony’s W560 simplifies controls further but places fewer physical buttons, relying more on single-function keys.

In practice, Nikon’s approach yields quicker access to zoom and capture for quick reaction shots, useful in dynamic environments like street or wildlife photography at short ranges. Meanwhile, the Sony can feel a bit fiddly, requiring more menu diving to change settings.

On the rear, both lack articulated or touchscreen displays (despite Nikon listing touchscreen capability, it’s limited and less responsive than modern standards). The S6400’s interface felt slightly more intuitive with its simpler menu hierarchy.

For photographers accustomed to dedicated controls or desire some manual input (even exposure compensation or manual focus), both cameras disappoint - ultracompact simplicity comes at the cost of deeper customization.

Screen Size and Image Playback Usability

A good LCD display is critical for composing and reviewing photos under varied conditions.

Both cameras offer fixed 3-inch TFT screens, but:

• Nikon’s screen boasts a resolution of 460k dots, delivering crisp image preview and detail assessment.
• Sony’s 230k-dot Clear Photo LCD, while decent for its era, feels less detailed and darker under bright sunlight.

From experience, the Nikon’s higher-resolution screen made framing macro shots easier and checking sharpness on-site more effective. The Sony’s dimmer screen sometimes forced me to rely on visual guesswork, especially when shooting outdoors or at odd angles.

Neither camera includes an electronic viewfinder - no surprises here given their size and price points - but this absence somewhat limits usability in ultra-bright scenes.

The Heart of the Matter: Sensor Technology and Image Quality

Sensor technology is the defining factor for image quality, but ultracompacts often live in an unfortunate trade-off zone: smaller sensors limit resolution and dynamic range but maintain pocketable lenses.

Both use sensors of identical physical size - 1/2.3 inch (6.17 x 4.55 mm), a common ultracompact standard - however, the differences lie in sensor type and resolution:

• Nikon S6400 incorporates a 16 MP backside-illuminated (BSI) CMOS sensor, a relatively newer architecture designed for better light gathering and less noise.
• Sony W560 employs a 14 MP CCD sensor, which traditionally struggles with low-light sensitivity and noise compared to BSI CMOS.

In real-world tests, the Nikon S6400's sensor delivered:

• Cleaner high ISO performance up to ISO 1600, with less evident noise, which boosts versatility in dim environments.
• More vibrant, balanced colors and better tonal gradation in highlights and shadows.
• A slightly better dynamic range overall, observable in landscape shots where cloud detail and shadow nuances emerge more naturally.

Sony’s CCD sensor, while producing acceptable daytime results, struggled past ISO 400, with visible noise creeping in and shadows flattening. Color reproduction appeared flatter and less lively compared to Nikon.

Neither camera supports RAW capture, restricting post-processing latitude. JPEGs straight out of the camera demonstrate that Nikon’s superior sensor technology offers more editing headroom, an aspect critical for enthusiasts who value image quality.

Lens Versatility: Zoom Range and Maximum Aperture

For travel and general photography, focal length flexibility often trumps pure optical performance.

• Nikon S6400 sports a 25-300 mm equivalent zoom range - a formidable 12x optical zoom.
• Sony W560 features a shorter 26-104 mm (4x optical zoom).

Mathematically, Nikon’s lens covers broad territory: wide-angle to super-telephoto. In practice, the extra reach permits wildlife or sports beginners to experiment with distant subjects without adding bulk.

However, maximum apertures are moderate:

• Nikon ranges from f/3.1 at wide-angle to f/6.5 at telephoto.
• Sony offers slightly brighter f/2.7 to f/5.7.

Although Sony’s lens is faster at the wide end, the absolute maximum apertures are small enough on both cameras to limit background blur and low light capabilities. In my portrait sessions, bokeh was soft and smooth on both cameras, but narrow apertures meant borderline low-light separation and shallow depth effects were difficult.

A notable strength is Nikon’s macro focus down to 10 cm and Sony’s closer 5 cm macro distance. Shooting flowers or small objects, Sony’s tighter focusing distance yielded more magnified details, but Nikon’s image stabilization and higher resolution compensated through cleaner, sharper output.

Autofocus Systems: Speed, Accuracy, and Tracking

Ultracompacts are not renowned for blazing autofocus, but responsiveness varies.

• Nikon’s S6400 deploys a contrast-detection AF system supplemented by face detection and autofocus tracking.
• Sony’s DSC-W560 runs a contrast-detection AF system without continuous tracking, equipped with 9 AF points.

In my hands-on speed tests (typical shooting under daylight conditions), Nikon’s autofocus was faster to lock onto well-lit subjects, especially faces. The tracking function helped keep moving subjects reasonably sharp when panning or when subjects moved moderately.

Sony’s AF, while accurate for static subjects, lacked any form of tracking - often hunting when subjects moved, resulting in occasional missed moments.

Neither camera marginally supports manual focus - consistent with their shopper-friendly design.

For wildlife or sports where rapid subject acquisition is critical, neither camera is ideal, but Nikon’s focus tracking offers a tangible edge over Sony.

Burst Rates and Shutter Speeds for Action

Fast-moving subjects demand high frame rates and shutter options.

• Nikon’s minimum shutter speed of 4 seconds and a maximum of 1/4000 s is a robust specification among ultracompacts.
• Sony offers a maximum shutter speed of 1/1600 s and minimum of 2 seconds.

However, continuous shooting modes:

• Nikon S6400 does not officially support burst shooting speeds.
• Sony W560 offers a sluggish 1 fps continuous mode.

In practice, Nikon’s lack of continuous shooting can frustrate sports enthusiasts wanting rapid-fire capture, but its faster shutter speed allows freezing motion better in bright light.

Sony limits both shutter extremes and frames-per-second, constricting action capture capabilities.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones, Eye Detection, and Bokeh

Portraying natural, flattering skin tones and separating subjects from backgrounds define the ultracompact portrait experience.

Nikon’s face detection autofocus and image processing render skin noticeably smoother and hues more realistic after some calibration. The 16 MP sensor ensures detail richness for close-up portraits. However, background blur was relatively weak at best, given maximum apertures and small sensor size.

Sony’s lack of face detection and lower-resolution sensor yield less refined skin reproduction. The lower max aperture at telephoto slightly helps isolation, but noisier high ISO performance compromises low-light portraits.

Both struggle to rival interchangeable lens systems or larger sensors for high-quality bokeh, but for casual portraits, Nikon’s superior autofocus and image processing make it the better choice.

Landscape Imaging: Dynamic Range and Weather Resistance

Landscape shooters value wide tonal range and resolution for detailed nature scenes.

Thanks to the Nikon’s 16 MP BSI CMOS sensor and better dynamic range, images showcased richer shadow and highlight detail, preserving fence textures in midday sun and distant mountain gradations.

Sony’s CCD sensor produces flatter images with more noise in shadows, limiting postprocessing leeway.

Neither camera includes weather sealing, so careful handling in humid or dusty environments is mandatory for both models.

Wildlife and Sports: Autofocus, Zoom, and Shooting Speed

When photographing erratic wildlife or fast-paced sports, autofocus speed and zoom range crucially influence outcomes.

The Nikon’s 12x zoom and autofocus tracking provide some flexibility to photograph birds or players at a casual level. While frame rates limit burst shooting capacity, a steady hand and patience can coax usable images.

Sony, limited to a 4x zoom and lacking tracking, is less suited to wildlife or sports endeavors.

Even then, ultracompacts overall pale next to DSLR or mirrorless systems for these uses, but Nikon’s superior range and AF give it visible advantages.

Street and Travel Photography: Discretion, Versatility, and Battery Life

Street photographers prize unobtrusiveness - size, weight, and quiet operation factor significantly.

Sony’s lighter and slimmer body is appealing for stealthy street capture. However, Nikon’s somewhat faster autofocus and versatile zoom better handle unexpectedly diverse shooting conditions when sightseeing.

Battery life is stubbornly low on both: Nikon offers approximately 160 shots per charge, Sony’s number is unspecified but presumably similar or lower given smaller battery size.

Both cameras recharge via USB, but plan for spare batteries during extended trips.

Macro and Close-Up: Focusing and Detail Capture

Sony’s closer 5 cm macro focusing distance theoretically offers better magnification for flower or insect photography. Nikon’s 10 cm minimum focus is respectable but less tight.

In practice, Nikon’s higher resolution sensor and superior image stabilization yielded sharper macro shots with less blur from hand shake, partially compensating for the slightly longer working distance.

Night and Astrophotography: High ISO and Exposure Modes

Neither camera is a powerhouse in low-light or astrophotography.

Nikon’s maximum ISO 3200 delivers usable images up to ISO 1600 in limited lighting, thanks to BSI CMOS and image processing. Sony’s CCD sensor noise rapidly degrades image quality past ISO 400, limiting night shooting.

Neither includes manual exposure modes, bulb, or long exposure capabilities, limiting astrophotography potential. Users must rely on automatic night modes, which produce mixed results.

Video Capabilities: Resolutions and Stabilization

Video remains modest on both:

• Nikon records Full HD (1920x1080) at 30 fps in H.264 codec.
• Sony caps at 1280x720 at 30 fps.

Neither camera includes microphone or headphone jacks; stereo audio capture is basic at best. Optical image stabilization on both helps smooth handheld video but electronic stabilization is absent.

For casual clips, Nikon’s higher resolution video is preferable, though neither excels for serious videographers.

Professional Considerations: Workflow and Reliability

Both cameras target casual users and enthusiasts rather than professionals.

Neither supports RAW capture or tethering, which impedes advanced workflows.

Their fixed lenses and basic processors limit output quality, but they offer viable backup solutions or casual companion cameras.

Connectivity and Storage Flexibility

Both models include Eye-Fi wireless card support for Wi-Fi file transfers and HDMI for external playback.

Sony supports more storage types, including Memory Stick formats besides SD cards; Nikon is restricted to SD/SDHC/SDXC.

Neither supports NFC or Bluetooth, reflecting generation limitations.

Price-to-Performance: Evaluating Value Today

When introduced, Nikon’s S6400 was priced around $500, reflecting its advanced sensor, zoom range, and video capabilities.

Sony’s W560, debuting at roughly $140, is an economical choice with fewer features.

Given approximate prices in 2024 markets:

• Nikon appeals to enthusiasts desiring higher image quality, more zoom, and video proficiency, justifying its premium.
• Sony is a budget-friendly compact for basic travel snapshots where size and cost dominate.

Summary Scorecard and Genre Breakdown

For a quick sector-by-sector rating, here’s a comparative score overview based on my testing metrics:

Aspect	Nikon S6400	Sony W560
Image Quality	★★★★☆	★★★☆☆
Autofocus	★★★☆☆	★★☆☆☆
Zoom Versatility	★★★★★	★★☆☆☆
Ease of Use	★★★★☆	★★★☆☆
Video Capability	★★★☆☆	★★☆☆☆
Portability	★★★☆☆	★★★★★
Battery Life	★★☆☆☆	★★☆☆☆
Value for Price	★★★☆☆	★★★★★

Diving more granularly into photography types:

Portrait: Nikon’s superior autofocus and color balance outweigh Sony’s limits.
Landscape: Nikon’s dynamic range and resolution deliver better results.
Wildlife: Nikon’s zoom and AF tracking prevail, but burst limits constrain serious use.
Sports: Neither ideal but Nikon slightly better.
Street: Sony’s size win, though Nikon’s speed helpful.
Macro: Tie; Sony closer focusing, Nikon sharper image.
Night/Astro: Nikon wins with cleaner high ISO.
Video: Nikon leads with HD capture.
Travel: Sony excels in portability; Nikon offers flexibility and image quality.
Professional: Neither meets demanding pro workflows.

Real-World Image Gallery

To conclude, here are some representative sample images captured by both cameras in our testing.

Observe how Nikon images retain more detail and color fidelity while Sony shots appear softer and noisier in low light.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations

After hundreds of test shots, personal outdoor shoots, and hands-on button mashing across various situations, what should you make of these two venerable ultracompacts?

• Choose the Nikon Coolpix S6400 if:
  You want better overall image quality, longer zoom reach, some video capability, and better autofocus for portraits, landscapes, and casual wildlife. It’s the camera for enthusiasts who prioritize quality and versatility but still need pocket portability.

• Choose the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W560 if:
  You need an ultra-affordable, ultra-compact point-and-shoot primed for simple snapshots, casual travel, or street photography where discretion and size beat every other feature. As a secondary camera or budget choice, it still takes respectable photos in optimal light.

Neither camera will satisfy professionals or serious advanced photographers, but these models serve distinct niches in the entry-level compact arena. Their dated specs reflect the rapid evolution of camera tech over the last decade - in 2024, a modern mirrorless camera or smartphone likely outperforms both in many respects. Still, for collectors, budget buyers, or those seeking simple cameras with longer zooms than smartphones offer, this comparison clarifies which one serves your photographic mission best.

Thanks for joining me through this detailed hands-on exploration - I hope these insights empower you to find the best fit for your needs and budget.

Happy shooting!