If it weren't for the poor lens and 8-megapixel sensor, the S600 would probably have much better photo quality. The 3x 38-114mm-equivalent f3.1-5.9 lens has a typical range and reach for its price class, but it's probably one of the worst we've seen with respect to sharpness.

As a result, you really don't want to print these photos at larger than 8 inches by 10 inches--even at that size the artifacts are obvious--and you certainly don't want to crop into anything but the center. That kind of defeats the purpose of having the high-resolution 8-megapixel sensor in the camera.

On the upside, it renders pleasing, bright colors, and its exposures look pretty good. The VGA-resolution, 30fps movies are also good (it writes AVI files at a bit rate of about 1MB per minute of video), but the inability to zoom while capturing severely limits the usefulness of the movie feature.
Aside from its good looks, the Nikon Coolpix S210 has price on its side: if you want the skinniest camera you can get on the cheap, this one's right down there. But if you also want decent photo quality and performance, look at the marginally more expensive but older Canon PowerShot SD1000--it's not as pretty or slim, but it's small, fast ,and delivers better photos. Or stretch your budget a little further for the also tiny and attractive, but better performing and optically stabilized, Canon PowerShot SD1100 IS.
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
| Time to first shot | Typical shot-to-shot time (flash) | Typical shot-to-shot time | Shutter lag (dim) | Shutter lag (typical) |
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
What You'll Pay
- See All Prices
- Set Price Alert
- Price History