Nikon Coolpix S · announced February 2007
The Nikon Coolpix S200: the cheaper slim Nikon of 2007, stabilised in software
Sold as the Coolpix S200 in every source we read.
Nikon announced the S200 beside the S500 in February 2007 at a planned $249.95, with a brushed-aluminium body and a stabiliser that worked on the picture rather than the lens. Reviewers praised the case and split over what came out of it.
- Launched
- February 2007
- Sensor
- 7.1 MP CCD
- Lens
- 38–114 mm, 3×
- Card
- SD, SDHC
- Battery
- EN-EL10
Nikon Coolpix S200 specs: sensor, lens, battery, memory card and cable
Launched in February 2007, the Nikon Coolpix S200 is a 7.1 MP CCD compact with a 38–114 mm (35 mm equivalent) 3× zoom lens. Inside: it takes SD and SDHC cards and runs on the EN-EL10 battery. Sources
Meet the camera
Nikon announced the S200 and the S500 together on 19 February 2007, two cameras of the same size for different buyers, both with a 7.1-megapixel sensor, a 3x lens and a 2.5-inch screen.1 Trusted Reviews put the pair in different leagues. The S500 chased Canon's IXUS range; the S200 was aimed lower, at the Pentax Optio M30, Olympus FE-230, Samsung L700 and Casio EX-Z75.4 Our own EX-Z75 review covers that last rival.
The body is brushed aluminium, 125 grams and 18.5 millimetres thick by Trusted Reviews' count, which it called one of the slimmest on the market and half a millimetre thicker than the Pentax.14 Pocket-lint called it tough and pleasant to hold.3 Imaging Resource gave 3.6 by 2.2 by 0.7 inches and noted there is no optical viewfinder, so the screen is the only way to frame a picture.2 The screen has 153,000 dots; Trusted Reviews found it bright with an excellent anti-glare coating and Pocket-lint called it excellent and low-reflection, while Imaging Resource filed the low resolution among its cons.432
Why this one was interesting
Stabilisation without moving parts
Trusted Reviews expected another high-ISO trick with a fancy name and found more: the e-VR system also reads motion sensors and processes blur out of slow shots after the fact. In its tests it coped down to about 1/20 of a second and no further, better than ISO-boosting but short of true optical stabilisation.4 Pocket-lint warned that the processing adds one to two seconds to each picture. Imaging Resource described the system differently, as raising sensitivity to speed the shutter, and listed electronic stabilisation, and the lack of a shutter-speed display, among its cons; it also noted the camera caps ISO at 800 in that mode, and that the user cannot tell when the sensitivity has been raised.32 Pocket-lint said that if you had an extra £50, the S500 and its optical stabilisation might be the better option.3
Face-aware portraits and a rescue kit
Nikon's own feature list, as Imaging Resource reported it, included face-priority autofocus, D-Lighting, a Best Shot Selector and in-camera red-eye fix.1 Trusted Reviews described a portrait mode with instant face detection and 15 scene programs, plus a mosaic burst that fires 16 frames in about 12 seconds and merges them into one picture.4 Imaging Resource liked the built-in Help screens, the One-Touch Portrait mode, D-Lighting and Best Shot Selector.2
A solid body in a crowded class
Trusted Reviews called the build flawless and solid for the weight, and in the same review said that without the logos the camera would be hard to tell from several rivals.4 Pocket-lint listed build among its pros.3
What was lost
Pocket-lint listed the lack of manual shooting options, with the software stabiliser, among its cons; it also found ISO, resolution and white balance buried in menus, with no quick-access shortcut.3 Imaging Resource counted a single image-quality setting, slow start-up and a weak flash among its negatives.2 Its flash measurements make the last point concrete: at ISO 100 wide-angle shots were bright to about 8 feet, against the 15.1 feet Nikon rated, a range the camera reached only after the ISO rose to 620.2
The dark: its weak point
Two of the three full reviews fault the dark, for different reasons. Trusted Reviews put autofocus first. Even in good light it took over a second to lock, and in a room lit by one 100-watt bulb it focused only about half the time; in dimmer rooms it failed to focus at all, and there is no autofocus assist lamp. The reviewer called that a major handicap to an otherwise good camera.4 Imaging Resource agreed there is no assist lamp, said focus worked down to just above half a foot-candle and that low-contrast subjects sometimes would not focus at all, though it found the camera focused fast in good light.2 Pocket-lint called the focus system reliable but slow.3
Then the sensor. Imaging Resource found above-average noise, with noise reduction already costing detail at ISO 200 and colour suffering after ISO 400. It called the low-light performance poor: ISO 200 gave a reasonably clean shot at one foot-candle, and ISO 800 got bright results down to a quarter of a foot-candle, but with unacceptable noise.2 Trusted Reviews saw visible noise on every shot above ISO 200, called ISO 400 unmistakable, ISO 800 quite bad and ISO 1000 a loss of fine detail.4 Pocket-lint put the line in the same place, calling ISO 50 and 100 excellent and the noise obvious at 800 and 1000.3 Two sample files on this page carry their ISO in their EXIF: the Arlington Cemetery Metro station at ISO 400 and an organ at ISO 200.
Like the sound of it? See recent eBay sold listings for this camera ↗
On eBay right now
Live listings for this camera, supplied by eBay and updated automatically. We earn a commission if you buy through them.
The little wins
Accurate exposure, decent colour
Imaging Resource thought automatic exposure accurate, outdoor exposure better than average and colour generally good, with some oversaturated reds, blues and greens.2 Trusted Reviews found a cloudy-day picture short on saturation and contrast.4
Quick when prefocused
Imaging Resource measured shutter lag of 0.066 seconds when prefocused and about 0.5 seconds with full autofocus, with flash recycling in 3.2 seconds.2
Good small prints
Imaging Resource found it could make crisp 8 by 10 inch prints, with 11 by 14 a bit softer but usable at ISO 50 and quality dropping quickly at higher settings.2
How it drew the picture
The reviews disagree about the lens, and the disagreement is worth showing rather than averaging. Imaging Resource measured wide-angle barrel distortion of 0.9 per cent, pincushion of about 0.7 per cent at the long end, purple fringing across the frame and soft corners, especially wide.2 Trusted Reviews is not consistent with itself: its text says minimal barrel distortion, a test-shot caption says noticeable barrel distortion at wide angle but no worse than most, and it reported no noticeable chromatic aberration and good edge-to-edge sharpness.4 Pocket-lint reported a little barrel distortion at the wide end and slight purple fringing.3 White balance splits the same way: Imaging Resource found indoor automatic white balance pinkish, Pocket-lint an orange cast in mixed light.23
The photographs below come from a handful of Commons contributors. By their EXIF data, five of the eight were shot at ISO 50, which is where the reviews said the camera was at its best; the others were taken at ISO 55, 193, 200 and 400.
Photos taken with this camera, from Wikimedia Commons, credited under each picture. The lead photograph at the top is also from this camera.
Where it let you down
Speed draws mixed verdicts. Imaging Resource called performance mixed, found start-up average in its text yet listed slow start-up among its cons, and timed start-up at 2.5 seconds, about 2.15 seconds between Large/Fine shots and a burst of 0.82 frames per second, below average, though it called flash recycling (3.2 seconds) quite fast. Trusted Reviews put start-up at just under three seconds, which it called not bad for a low-cost camera, and shutdown at about two and a half; it measured continuous shooting at just under a shot a second. Pocket-lint found it quick for normal snaps with very slight shutter lag, but slow to focus and slowed further by the stabiliser.243 Autofocus has no assist light, as above.24 CNET's verdict, as PhotographyBLOG quotes it, was that the camera suffers from "style over substance", with image quality and weak low-light performance undermining a slim metal body.5
What the reviewers said in 2007
| Outlet | Date | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Pocket-lint | 6 Jun 2007 | 4 out of 5: stylish, well built, excellent at ISO 50 and 100; noisy at 800 and 1000; a lighter alternative to the S500.3 |
| CNET (via PhotographyBLOG) | 14 Aug 2007 | Style over substance: slim metal body, but image quality and low light let it down.5 |
| Imaging Resource | 22 Sep 2007 | Attractive and simple for snapshooters in good light or with flash; image quality disappointing; $30 to $40 more buys better.2 |
| Trusted Reviews | undated page | Run-of-the-mill ultra-compact: slim and well built, but poor low-light autofocus and indifferent images; scores shown: value 8, image quality 6.4 |
The timeline
- 19 February 2007Nikon announces the S200 and S500; planned US price $249.95, due in March.1
- March 2007On sale in the UK at £199 according to Trusted Reviews; Imaging Resource's spec list gives 31 March as availability.42
- 6 June 2007Pocket-lint publishes its review.3
- 22 September 2007Imaging Resource publishes its review, putting the price at under $200.2
Should you buy one now?
Buy one if you want a 2007 aluminium slab with a CCD sensor and are happy to shoot in daylight at ISO 50 or 100. Nikon announced it at a planned $249.95;1 what it sells for now is a question for the sold listings, not for us. Before you bid, check these:
- The battery. It uses an EN-EL10, rated for 230 shots when new;12 a fresh one is on Amazon ↗.
- The card. It takes SD and SDHC cards and has 20 MB built in;24 see our memory card guide.
- The screen. Trusted Reviews praised the anti-glare coating, so look for scratches and a bright, even picture.4
- Autofocus. Try it indoors. It has no assist lamp and the reviews found it unreliable in dim light.42
- The settings. Stay near ISO 50 to 100 where you can.34
Want a later, cheaper Nikon to compare? Our S3300, S3700 and S6300 reviews cover the 2012 and 2015 slim Coolpix line, and if you wonder why people are hunting cameras like this again, we tell that story once, in Pictures that never left the card.
See recent sold prices on eBay ↗Shop on eBay ↗EN-EL10 battery ↗
Sources
- Imaging Resource, Nikon announces Coolpix S200, S500, by Mike Tomkins (Nikon's release is dated 19 Feb 2007, the story 20 Feb; price, availability, battery, feature list)
- Imaging Resource, Nikon Coolpix S200 review by Theano Nikitas (22 Sep 2007), with its specification list and lab tests
- Pocket-lint, Nikon Coolpix S200 review by Doug Harman (6 Jun 2007)
- Trusted Reviews, Nikon CoolPix S200 review (the page shows no author or date; its original address carries 2007/09/01)
- PhotographyBLOG, Nikon Coolpix S200 Review at CNET (14 Aug 2007; PhotographyBLOG's short note quoting CNET's verdict; we could not open CNET's own page)
- Digicam Atlas, our own Casio EX-Z75, Nikon Coolpix S3300, S3700 and S6300 reviews (each cites its own sources)
Sample photographs are credited under each one, all via Wikimedia Commons. Links to eBay and Amazon are affiliate links.