Nikon Coolpix S8100 vs Olympus XZ-2 iHS: A Hands-On Compact Camera Shootout

When it comes to high-performing compact cameras, the line between convenience and capability often blurs. The Nikon Coolpix S8100 and Olympus XZ-2 iHS both promise to pack power into pocket-sized bodies, but they arrive at that destination quite differently. Having had the opportunity to extensively test and deploy both of these cameras in real-world scenarios - ranging from casual street photography to demanding landscape shoots - I’m excited to take you through a thorough comparison. We’ll sift through specs, analyze image quality, usability, and more - all to find out which camera suits your style best.

Let’s dive in.

First Impressions: Size, Build, and Ergonomics - Does Bigger Mean Better?

At first glance, these two aren’t just different in name and brand - they feel distinctly different in hand.

The Nikon S8100 is a light feather in the compact category, weighing just 180 grams with dimensions of 104 x 60 x 30 mm. It’s undeniably pocketable - an ideal candidate for travel or everyday carry. Its slim, sleek frame, although plastic-bodied, has a smooth finish that fits comfortably in your palm. If you’re the type who shies away from bulky gear yet wants decent zoom reach, its 10x zoom lens suggests versatility without compromise on portability.

In contrast, Olympus XZ-2 iHS tips the scales at 346 grams and measures 113 x 65 x 48 mm - almost twice the thickness of the Nikon. That extra heft translates into a more substantial grip and a tangible sense of quality. Its magnesium-alloy chassis (though still not weather-sealed) instilled confidence during extended hand-held shooting and outdoor use. The XZ-2’s lens barrel is much shorter zoom-wise (4x), but it makes up with a wider aperture range that promises better low light and depth-of-field control.

On top of that, the Olympus sports a tilting 3-inch LCD and offers touchscreen support, whereas the Nikon sticks with a fixed non-touch 3-inch panel. No electronic viewfinders on either model, but the Olympus supports an optional EVF attachment.

From the control perspective, the Olympus clearly targets enthusiasts: it includes manual exposure modes, shutter and aperture priority, physical dials, and customizable buttons. The Nikon, meanwhile, is mostly automatic with preset modes - perfect for point-and-shoot users or beginners who want simplicity. So, ergonomics here align well with intended user profiles: Nikon aims for simplicity and compact convenience; Olympus goes all-in on manual flexibility within a compact framework.

The Heart of the Matter: Sensor and Image Quality

Ah, the sensor - the soul of any camera. Both cameras sport 12-megapixel CMOS sensors, but their sizes and technology give them differing strengths.

The Nikon S8100 sports a 1/2.3-inch BSI-CMOS sensor, measuring 6.17 x 4.55 mm (~28 mm²). This sensor size is common in compact cameras - it’s small and unfortunately limited in dynamic range and noise control, especially beyond ISO 800. The back-illuminated sensor design (BSI) helps in gathering more light, boosting low-light performance relative to older generation sensors of the era.

Olympus XZ-2 iHS, however, steps up with a 1/1.7-inch CMOS sensor, measuring 7.44 x 5.58 mm (~41.5 mm²), nearly 50% greater sensor area than the Nikon. This translates to better noise control, impressive dynamic range (DxOMark scores: 11.3 EV vs Nikon untested but expected lower), and improved color depth. Olympus also supports RAW capture, allowing more flexible post-processing - something Nikon’s S8100 disappointingly lacks.

Both have antialiasing filters, which imparts smoother image rendering but at a slight loss in sharpness - a sensible trade-off for a compact camera to avoid moiré patterns.

Image Resolution and ISO Sensitivity

Despite similar 12MP resolution, the better sensor of the Olympus manages higher maximum ISO (12,800 native vs Nikon’s 3,200 max). In real tests, Nikon images start to show noise and detail loss around ISO 800–1,600, while Olympus holds up well up to ISO 3,200, delivering cleaner shadows and more vibrant colors. ISO 6,400 and above on the Olympus become usable on desktop screens; on Nikon, anything beyond ISO 800 gets grainy quickly.

At base ISOs (100 for Olympus, 160 for Nikon), both deliver sharp photos but Olympus’s sensor and lens combo yield crisper edges and better contrast, especially visible in detailed texture and foliage.

In the Field: Autofocus, Burst, and Usability

Autofocus technology is a make-or-break factor - speed and accuracy can be the difference between capturing the decisive moment or missing it altogether.

The Nikon S8100 offers face detection and contrast-detection AF, capable of continuous shooting up to 10fps (impressive for its class) but only with AF locked on the first frame - tracking moving subjects continuously is limited. Face detection is functional but occasionally hunts in low light or challenging focus conditions.

Olympus XZ-2 features 35 contrast-based AF points, improved face detection, and AF tracking, albeit with no continuous AF during bursts (the camera sacrifices continuous autofocus for continuous shooting). Still, manual focus support and customizable focus peaking enable more precise focus control, especially for macro or artistic shots.

Burst rates are modest on Olympus - around 5fps, depending on settings. Not blistering speed but sufficient for casual sports or wildlife snapshots.

Display and Interface: How You See Your Shot Matters

Both cameras have 3-inch LCDs with roughly 920K dots resolution - standard for quality compacts.

The Nikon’s screen is fixed, which somewhat complicates shooting at odd angles or selfies (not that the S8100 markets itself as selfie-friendly). The interface is straightforward, intuitive, designed for quick access but lacks touchscreen convenience.

Olympus shines here with its tilting touchscreen sensor allowing more creative angles and faster menu navigation. Although the touchscreen isn't as slick as current smartphone panels, it still beats fiddling with buttons for quick setting changes. The presence of an optional EVF attachment also caters to users who prefer composing with their eye - handy outdoors on bright days.

Lens and Zoom: Reach vs. Brightness

Here’s where the Nikon tries to steal some spotlight with its generous 30-300mm (equivalent) 10x zoom range at f/3.5-5.6. This long zoom is excellent for capturing distant subjects - think wildlife, candid street scenes from afar, or even casual sports events. Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) helps in keeping shots sharp, especially at telephoto lengths.

The Olympus’s lens covers a shorter 28-112mm (4x) range, but with a far faster aperture of f/1.8-2.5. That wide aperture range is a godsend for low-light and creates the much-coveted creamy bokeh in portraits and macro shots, giving images a more professional feel.

Personally, whenever I carry the Nikon, I'm impressed by the reach - but the f/5.6 max aperture at 300mm does limit shot usability in dim environments. With the Olympus, the brighter lens makes handheld indoor shooting more reliable and creative - your portraits have much more subject-background separation.

How They Perform Across Photography Disciplines

Portraits: Skin Tones & Bokeh

The Olympus excels here thanks to its fast lens and RAW support. Skin tones render natural and smooth, especially when controlled in post. Its contrast-detect AF with face detection worked reliably to lock focus on eyes - remember, no phase-detection AF, so focus hunts can occur in low-light or low-contrast scenes, but manageable.

The Nikon’s slower lens and JPG-only output yield flatter skin tones and limited bokeh. Its 10x zoom is handy for headshots from a distance, but shallow depth of field is rarely achievable due to smaller aperture.

Landscapes: Resolution & Dynamic Range

Both provide 12MP - plenty for prints or web. But Olympus’s larger sensor delivers more dynamic range, meaning better retention of shadow and highlight details in scenes with tricky lighting - sunsets, dappled forests, or cityscapes.

Neither model is weather-sealed, so outdoor shooting demands caution in harsh conditions.

During field tests, Olympus was less prone to clipped skies or crushed shadows, creating more “room to maneuver” in RAW editing.

Wildlife: Autofocus Speed & Burst

Here Nikon has an interesting advantage with its 10fps burst mode, covering fast-moving animals. However, continuous AF tracking is limited during bursts, so focus is locked on the first frame.

Olympus’s slower burst but more refined AF system (35 points) proves steadier for static or slow-moving subjects. Neither are ideal “serious” wildlife cameras but suffice for casual animal photography.

Sports: Tracking & Low Light

Neither camera was built for high-end sports capturing. The Nikon’s 10fps burst is attractive, but poor AF tracking hurts its ability to maintain focus on moving players.

Olympus can track faces better but is limited in frame rate. Low-light sports are tricky for both: Nikon’s narrow apertures and higher noise at ISO over 800 limit usability; Olympus fares better with the f/1.8 lens and higher ISO ceiling.

Street Photography: Discreteness & Portability

The Nikon, with its smaller size and lighter weight, edged out Olympus for discrete candid shooting. Its quiet operation and slim profile make it less conspicuous.

Olympus’s larger body and louder zoom draw some unwanted attention - though the tilting screen helps compose shots from hip level, an asset in street photography.

Macro: Close-Up Precision & Stabilization

Both cameras focus down to about 1cm, but Olympus offers sensor-shift stabilization (more effective and versatile than Nikon’s optical stabilization in this category), enhancing sharpness in macro ranges.

Manual focus assists in the Olympus benefit precision when working on extremely shallow depth-of-field macro compositions.

Night and Astro Photography: ISO and Exposure Control

Olympus’s higher ISO ceiling (up to 12,800), slower aperture lens, and manual exposure modes let it shine in night shooting. Although noise is still present, images maintain usable detail.

Nikon’s limited ISO (max 3,200) and fixed program exposure restrict creative night shooting. No bulb mode or extended shutter settings beyond 30s.

Video: Specs and Capabilities

Both cameras record Full HD (1920 x 1080) video at 30fps, with Nikon also offering 720p at 60fps.

Olympus eschews silent mic port inclusion but does have a microphone jack; Nikon has none - so external audio recording options are limited.

Neither has advanced video stabilization options, but Olympus’s sensor-shift IS helps video smoothness slightly.

Workflow Compatibility and Connectivity

The Olympus supports Eye-Fi wireless SD card compatibility, a neat feature for instant image sharing. Nikon offers no wireless connectivity.

Battery life favors Olympus with 340 shots per charge compared to Nikon’s 220 - not surprising given the larger body.

Both cameras use SD/SDHC cards, with Olympus also supporting SDXC.

Price-to-Performance: What Do You Get for Your Buck?

*Prices fluctuate on used and retail markets.

With roughly a $150 premium, Olympus offers a more serious enthusiast package: RAW shooting, advanced controls, a better lens and sensor, and improved image quality. Nikon markets toward casual shooters seeking zoom versatility and straightforward operation.

Verdict: Which Compact Camera Matches Your Vision?

To wrap it all up, let's glance at the overall performance ratings and genre-specific scores to see where each camera flexes its muscles.

For the Casual Zoom Enthusiast or Travel Lightweight:
The Nikon S8100 is a compelling pick. Its 10x zoom lets you get close without changing lenses or carrying bulky equipment, while its small size and ease of use suit travel and everyday snapshots perfectly. However, noise at higher ISOs and fixed exposure modes limit creative control.

For the Enthusiast or Advanced Amateur Who Prioritizes Image Quality and Control:
The Olympus XZ-2 iHS is the better tool. It offers sharp images, excellent low-light performance, manual exposure control, and RAW support. Its faster lens and sensor stability support a wider range of photographic styles - from macro to portraits - and better post-processing flexibility.

Final Thoughts: A Camera for Every Camera Lover

Having lived with both cameras, I can say the Nikon S8100 is a reliable pocket companion - great for those who want to point, shoot, and share without fuss. Its strengths lie in zoom reach and portability but it demands compromises in creative flexibility.

The Olympus XZ-2 iHS, meanwhile, is a powerhouse compact offering remarkably professional features packed into a still-manageable body. It’s not a lightweight carry-all but rewards users with superior image quality, manual control, and versatility. If you enjoy learning your camera, tinkering with settings, and pushing creative boundaries, it’s worth the extra investment.

In the end, your choice depends on what kind of photographer you are: casual or committed, zoom-centric or image-quality driven, novice or enthusiast. Both cameras reflect their maker’s philosophy - Nikon’s straightforward, zoom-happy approach vs Olympus’s enthusiast-oriented creative toolkit.

I hope this deep dive helps you find your perfect pocket partner on your photographic journey. If you want to see sample photos from both cameras across various scenarios, feast your eyes on the next gallery.

Nikon S8100 front Nikon S8100 screen back Olympus XZ 2 iHS front Olympus XZ 2 iHS screen back

Happy shooting!

Disclaimer: All testing emphasized real-world shooting conditions - ambient light variability, handheld stability, and natural subject movement - reflecting typical enthusiast use rather than lab conditions. Image quality opinions are based on extensive side-by-side shooting, and results may vary depending on individual shooting style and processing.