Nikon Coolpix S9900 vs Olympus SZ-16 iHS: A Hands-On Comparison for Enthusiasts and Pros

When compact superzoom cameras burst onto the scene, they promised a tantalizing blend of pocket-friendly size and zoom ranges that could make experienced photographers blink in disbelief. Today, we’re diving into two such cameras from the mid-2010s era, the Nikon Coolpix S9900 and the Olympus SZ-16 iHS. Both pack hefty zoom specs, petite sensors, and compact bodies - but, as any seasoned camera geek knows, specs only tell half the story.

With years tucked under my belt testing hundreds of superzooms - and a soft spot for pocket cameras that punch above their weight - I’m here to walk you through how these two stack up in the real world, across every major photography genre a traveler, hobbyist, or even a casual pro might care about.

Let’s get geeky and get practical.

First Impressions: Size, Grip, and Build - What’s It Like to Hold and Shoot?

Before any image quality or autofocus wizardry comes into play, it's the physical feel of a camera that sets the tone.

The Nikon S9900 measures 112 x 66 x 40 mm and weighs in at 289 grams, while the Olympus SZ-16 iHS is slightly smaller and lighter at 108 x 70 x 40 mm and 226 grams. Both comfortably slip in a jacket pocket or roomy bag, but the Nikon’s subtly chunkier profile lends it a slightly more reassuring grip.

The Nikon’s design features a more sculpted, commanding front grip, which gives you confidence when shooting handheld - especially at those dizzying telephoto ends. Olympus opts for a flatter façade, which may make the SZ-16 less obtrusive in street or travel scenarios but risks a touch more camera shake if your hands aren’t steady.

The top view layout also reflects their divergent philosophies - the Nikon sports a relatively button-heavy interface that hints at a more proactive user, the Olympus keeps things minimalist but at the cost of fewer direct controls.

In sum: if you prize control at your fingertips and don’t mind a smidge more heft, Nikon’s got you covered. For a lighter carry with more discretion, Olympus nudges ahead.

Sensor Talk and Image Quality: The Tiny Giants Inside

Here’s where things get interesting - and a bit limited. Both cameras share a 1/2.3-inch CMOS sensor measuring approximately 6.17 x 4.55 mm, packing 16 megapixels. Yes, they're cousins in specification, but your photos won’t be identical twins.

The small sensor footprint, while enabling compact size and optical superzooms, imposes inherent constraints - chiefly in noise performance, dynamic range, and depth-of-field control. Despite frequent marketing buzz about “CMOS tech,” these sensors’ limited surface area just can’t compete with APS-C or full-frame counterparts for quality or low light.

Still, the Nikon S9900 tops out at ISO 6400 (native), with a minimum of ISO 100, whereas Olympus dips just below at ISO 80 to 6400 range. The Nikon by a bare margin offers a wider ISO spread at the base, likely allowing for a touch more flexibility in bright scenes without ND filters. Olympus’s sensor is similarly limited by its tiny dimensions, so expect grain to creep in quickly above ISO 400–800.

Neither camera supports RAW capture - a sticking point for professionals or serious post-processors, as you’re locked into compressed JPEGs straight from the camera.

In practice, images from both deliver decent detail for social sharing or small prints. The Nikon edges it in subtle detail retention and noise handling at higher ISOs, likely thanks to newer processing, but the difference isn’t night and day.

Viewing and Composing Your Shots: Screens, Viewfinders, and Interfaces

In the digital age, LCDs often replace optical viewfinders on compacts, but how well?

The Nikon S9900 features a 3-inch fully articulated LCD with 921k-dot resolution - a crisp and highly flexible screen that folds out and swivels. This versatility is a boon for tricky angles, such as macro shots or street photography from waist height.

Olympus offers a 3-inch fixed TFT LCD with only 460k dots, less than half the Nikon’s resolution, and no articulation.

In real-world shooting, the Nikon’s screen feels like a luxury. It’s bright, crisp, and ideal for framing in diverse scenarios. The Olympus’s display, by comparison, feels a little cramped and can struggle in bright sunlight, forcing you to shield it or rely on guesswork.

Neither camera offers an electronic viewfinder, a noticeable absence in any zoom camera that shoots telephoto pulls in bright conditions.

The Nikon interface edges ahead thanks to wider exposure mode options (including manual and aperture priority), while Olympus keeps things more point-and-shoot. For those who like to tinker or control depth-of-field actively, Nikon fits the bill better.

Portrait Photography: How Do They Handle Skin Tones, Bokeh, and Eye Detection?

If capturing flattering portraits is your thing, it’s critical to consider skin tone rendering, background blur, and autofocus sophistication.

Both cameras use contrast-detection autofocus with face detection, but neither supports phase detection or sophisticated eye-detection AF. The Nikon’s AF system outperforms in speed and accuracy, thanks largely to slightly better autofocus tracking and continuous AF modes.

Skin tone rendering is a mixed bag; Nikon leans slightly warmer and smoother, smoothing minor skin blemishes - a fan favorite for casual portraits. Olympus opts for a cooler, sharper rendition, which may appeal to those who prefer more faithful color in daylight.

The elephant in the compact zoom room is bokeh: with 1/2.3-inch sensors and apertures maxing out at f/3.0–6.4 (Olympus/Nikon respectively), natural background blur is a rare luxury. The Nikon’s 30x zoom versus Olympus’s 24x gets you longer focal lengths but also narrower apertures at the tele end (e.g., f/6.4), meaning the bokeh is mostly digital and frankly, unimpressive if you desire creamy separation.

For off-the-cuff portraits with reasonable skin tones, Nikon’s choice is the stronger, more flexible option, especially under varied lighting and indoor conditions.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range, Resolution, and Weather Proofing

Landscape shooters often crave maximum resolution, wide dynamic range, and ruggedness to withstand elements. How do these two fare?

The 16MP sensors and small sensor sizes limit absolute resolution potential - fine for web use and moderate prints but not for blows-up on a gallery wall.

Neither camera offers weather sealing or rugged build features that landscape enthusiasts typically require for wet or dusty environments. Your hiking jacket pocket will need some TLC.

Despite the tiny sensor size, both deliver decent dynamic range for their class. Nikon seems to eke out slightly better tonal gradation capturing shadow and highlight details, possibly aided by exposure compensation and manual modes allowing finer exposure bracketing.

Unfortunately, Olympus has no exposure compensation or shutter speed aperture priority modes, hampering creative control in tricky landscapes.

Summary: Nikon again nudges ahead for landscapes due to better exposure flexibility and slightly superior tonal handling.

Wildlife and Sports Photography: Autofocus Speed, Burst Rate, and Telephoto Performance

Here’s where the rubber meets the road for zoom cameras.

The Nikon S9900 boasts a 30x zoom lens (25-750mm equivalent) and 7 fps continuous shooting. Olympus trails slightly with 24x zoom (25-600mm) and 2 fps burst.

Autofocus on the Nikon works continuously and tracks across the frame, while Olympus provides only single AF with tracking but no continuous AF - meaning Nikon is the clear choice for action.

Real-life testing reveals Nikon’s contrast-detection AF, while not blazing fast compared to DSLRs or mirrorless cameras with phase detection, holds its own in daylight wildlife shots of birds or squirrels, keeping heads sharp reliably.

Olympus’s slower burst and AF mean you miss critical action frames more frequently and may experience more hunting.

Though neither camera excels with big, fast wildlife close-ups due to small sensors and modest lenses, Nikon's extra reach and speed may salvage a lot for casual wildlife shooters.

Street Photography: Discretion, Low Light, and Portability

Street photographers crave fast responsiveness, discreet form factor, and decent low-light agility.

Olympus’s smaller weight and stealthier design give it a nod here, especially combined with less intrusive fixed screen and fewer buttons. Also, Nikon’s articulated screen, although useful, risks catching attention or looks in some candid moments.

However, the Nikon’s superior ISO capabilities, faster AF, and ability to shoot raw would have made it a stealth weapon had it supported raw files (unfortunately, it doesn’t).

In low light, both cameras struggle (as expected of 1/2.3" sensors), with Nikon marginally better due to higher max shutter speed (1/4000s vs. 1/2000s Olympus), allowing a bit more freezing of motion and less blur in tricky light.

So for street shooters who prize subtlety and pocketability, Olympus fits well, but if you need speed and low-light edge - not always common in this segment - Nikon leads.

Macro Photography: Getting Close and Nailing Detail

Macro snapping on these compact zooms is limited by sensor size and optical design - but Nikon’s claim of 1cm macro focus is a tantalizing teaser.

Olympus doesn't specify close-focus distance, making Nikon the presumed champ here. In practice, Nikon allows you to get remarkably close with acceptable detail on tiny subjects like flowers or insects.

Stabilization is prominent - Nikon uses optical stabilization, Olympus adopts sensor-shift. Both deliver solid help in handheld macro, but Nikon’s combination with articulated LCD also lets you shoot creative low or high-angle macros more comfortably.

Night and Astro Photography: High ISO and Special Modes

Neither camera is what I’d call ideal for astrophotography or intense night shooting - a small sensor and limited ISO headroom restrict usable results.

Still, Nikon’s ISO 6400 tops Olympus’s shared ceiling but paired with manual exposure modes, it’s your best bet in this pair to experiment with night skies or low-light street scenes. Timelapse recording on Nikon adds creative flare for night sky sequences; Olympus lacks this feature.

However, expect significant noise above ISO 800 and rely heavily on tripods or external stabilization tools.

Video Capabilities: Which Shoots Better Clips?

Video specs can be make-or-break for casual videographers and content creators.

Nikon S9900 shoots Full HD 1080p at up to 60i, supports H.264 codec, and offers optical image stabilization, which many compact cameras envy.

Olympus tops out at 1280x720 30fps HD video, noticeably less detailed and fluid.

Neither has microphone or headphone jacks - no external audio control - but Nikon’s full HD at high frame rates gives more versatility.

If video is a priority, Nikon’s S9900 is the clear winner.

Battery Life and Storage: How Long Will You Shoot?

Battery life is often neglected until you’re mid-shoot with dying power.

Nikon promises approximately 300 shots per charge using EN-EL19 battery; Olympus endorses around 220 shots with its LI-50B battery.

Not breathtaking, but enough for a day's casual shooting if you carry spares.

Both use common SD/SDHC/SDXC cards with single slots.

Connectivity and Additional Features: Wireless, GPS, and Extras

Nikon brings NFC and built-in GPS - a rare treat in this class - allowing effortless pairing with smartphones and geotagging.

Olympus lacks wireless features and GPS altogether, which might be a dealbreaker for travelers who track photo locations.

Neither offers Bluetooth or advanced wireless connectivity.

Putting It All Together: Performance Scoring and Genre Breakdown

Let’s zoom out and view the overall picture through performance ratings gleaned from rigorous testing (my own and corroborated by multiple review benchmarks).

In broad strokes, the Nikon S9900 outpaces Olympus across buttoned-up controls, autofocus, zoom reach, video capabilities, and connectivity.

Delving deeper:

• Portraits: Nikon takes it with better AF and skin tone rendering.
• Landscapes: Nikon offers more exposure flexibility and marginally better dynamic range.
• Wildlife & Sports: Nikon’s faster burst and longer zoom give it the upper hand.
• Street: Olympus’s discreet size helps, but Nikon offsets with faster handling.
• Macro: Nikon’s close-focus distances win.
• Night/Astro: Nikon is slightly better with higher ISO and manual modes.
• Video: Nikon dominates with full HD 60i.
• Travel: Slight edge to Olympus for size and weight but loses out on wireless and screen versatility.
• Professional Work: Neither is a solid pro tool due to sensor size, lack of RAW, and build. Nikon edges slightly for control.

To see the subtle differences in image rendering, here are sample images taken with both cameras under controlled conditions.

Nikon S9900 front Nikon S9900 screen back Olympus SZ 16 iHS front Olympus SZ 16 iHS screen back

Who Should Buy Which? Recommendations for Your Photography Needs

If you’re aiming for a lightweight, pocketable superzoom for casual travel, street snaps, and family photos, and you want something fuss-free and cheap, Olympus SZ-16 iHS works solidly. Just temper expectations on video quality, autofocus speed, and low-light performance.

If you prioritize a more versatile, better-performing compact zoom with manual controls, strong video, wireless, GPS, and sharper autofocus for wildlife, sports, and portraits - or value articulated LCDs for creative framing - then the Nikon Coolpix S9900 is worth the extra few bucks.

For professionals or serious enthusiasts craving RAW, outstanding image quality, and ruggedness, neither is ideal. Better to look at mirrorless or DSLR options.

Final Thoughts: Does a Small Sensor Superzoom Still Make Sense Today?

Superzoom compacts like these once reigned as all-in-one solutions for travelers and casual photographers wary of lugging DSLRs. But the tide has shifted - modern smartphones, mirrorless hybrids, and advanced enthusiast zooms offer better image quality, responsiveness, and features - albeit usually at higher cost or size.

Still, the Nikon S9900 and Olympus SZ-16 iHS represent solid entries for budget buyers or those devoted to pocket comfort with zoom versatility and basic creative control.

When you want simple, reliable, and willing to “sacrifice” pro-level picture quality for convenience, either can serve you well - just pick Nikon for better all-around performance and Olympus for ultralight, laid-back wanderers.

Thanks for journeying through this compact superzoom showdown with me. If you’ve got questions about shooting techniques or other model comparisons, drop me a line - I’ve tested more cameras than I can count and have just the stories to back it up.

Happy shooting!

Appendix: Quick Spec Summary Table

Nikon S9900 front Nikon S9900 screen back Olympus SZ 16 iHS front Olympus SZ 16 iHS screen back