Nikon Coolpix S210

8.0 megapixels | 2.5" screen | 38 – 114 mm (3×)

User reviews

Average rating: 3.18
5 stars
(0)
4 stars
(4)
3 stars
(4)
2 stars
(3)
1 stars
(0)
Sort by
12
mvalerian
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: mvalerian posted on Jul 14, 2009 UTC

Opinion: Hi! I have had a previous Nikon Coolpix 4600 before, satisfied with it & no problem for the value that I paid for.

Currently now I own a Coolpix S-210, slim, light & friendly user which I carry it all times with me.

My many friends do have commented that the shots & even the video clips taken are very clear indeed & I do have good recommendation to my friends about Nikon cameras despite of whatsoever model avalaible in the market.

I am not a professional camera man, but I do learn & gain experiences when each time I take shots & videos.

It does not matter whatsoever model or brand camera that you purchase or use, but the importance is how you manage to setup your camera mode before taking shots.

Many people do not know how to snap good photos as they'd only know just to click...click....click without any prior proper setting mode eg: - indoor, outdoor, night, flash, redlight & etc.( Which I'd also did the same as before )

And that's where the complain starts,... this & that,then given bad remarks about the good camera. This is totally
untrue & I'm sure most camera manufactures compete to promote good cameras in the market & not "chowkia" ones.

I was indeed suprised to read as many in the forum critized about this model. I'm sure the manufacturer of this camera is not stupid to design this model for a purpose.

Lastly, I would admit as I'd still have difficulties taking night shot photos but yet I am still patiently exploring the functions for taking good night photos.

Kindly do pls. help me if anyone could provide guide assistance on how to setup the camera for night shots by contacting me at :

valerian.mariasoosay@trw.com
mobile - +6012 / 4382691

Thank You!

Problems: No problems so far, but only have difficulties taking night shots,

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report
aokbeatty
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: aokbeatty posted on May 30, 2009 UTC

Opinion: It was a pretty decent little point & shoot while it lasted. One negative feature is the buttons. Unless I put my finger in exactly the right spot, I had trouble depressing both the power button & shutter. I have smallish fingers, it seems like it would be worse for anyone with larger fingers.

Problems: My camera is 14 months old and the image sensor died. It would cost more to fix it than it is worth. I am extremely disappointed, but there's nothing I can do since it's out of warranty now.

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report
CyberSaint
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: CyberSaint posted on Jan 7, 2009 UTC

Opinion: Very disappointed!
I had a Nikon Coolpix S600 for a point-and-shoot to supplement my Nikon D80. It did a great job for me, but I gave it to my son to take on his recent deployment to Afghanistan. Now I'm in the market again for another P&S, and thought this one might do the trick. I was very disappointed.

Among the few positives, the camera outwardly is built well, looks great, and feels solid. The negatives however, are within the camera itself. It is so small it is hard to stabilize it to take a decent picture. The vibration reduction (VR) is electronic, not optical, which nearly eliminates any usefulness of the feature. The camera is extremely slow, so much so that it may move between the time the button is pressed showing the desired image on the LCD and the time the picture actually snaps. Disabling the red eye reduction will help a little, but it still moves very slowly. The picture quality is on the grainy side.

I wish I had more positive things to say about this camera. I am definitely a Nikon fan, even with point-and-shoots, but this one just isn't a keeper. I'll be returning it tomorrow.

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report
radaristas
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: radaristas posted on Oct 8, 2008 UTC

Opinion: I also own a Sony DSC w30. In comparison with sony, Nikon has richer colours, vibrating stabilizer and better macro. I am quite pleased for my choise. Ideal for begginers and for advanced photographers.
Quite clean shots until ISO 800. Very much noise over 800.

Problems: No battery status...

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report
Timothy Ng
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: Timothy Ng posted on Sep 29, 2008 UTC

Opinion: It sucks!! Don't waste your money even it is cheap! The photo quality and auto focusing are both so bad. I was a Nikon fan since I used FG, then F70. But now, I am so disappointed.

Problems: Picture quality is the worst I have ever had! It even worse than my old Casio Exilim Ex-z4.

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report
osmiza
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: osmiza posted on Sep 26, 2008 UTC

Opinion: 170 euros totally Wasted

my first nikon camera

Problems: my last nikon camera

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report
milea
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: milea posted on Jul 2, 2008 UTC

Opinion: Pros:
+ Well builded metal body
+ Nice design
+ Small and light
+ Price
+ Easy to use
+ Good shoot to shoot times

Cons:
- No viewfinder
- Bad image quality (my 4 years old HP Photosmart R707, have much better image quality then S210)
- No battery indicator
- Average battery (about 200 shots)

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report
Yusuf Siddiqui
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: Yusuf Siddiqui posted on Jun 28, 2008 UTC

Opinion: This is my first digital camera. I wanted something small I could take for a trip to my niece's wedding. I got it for $130 with a coupon (it normally runs around $170). The camera is incredibly small and light, just about the thinnest out there. It's reasonably durable--I dropped it once and all that happened was a small nick on the exterior. The LCD screen is nice and bright, and is easy to see in all but the brightest sunlight. There are many built-in settings to help in a variety of situations, including some obscure ones such as beach or fireworks. Exposure compensation is useful to tone down the brightness of very sunny scenes. Some photo settings have problems, especially in indoor lighting conditions (see problem section), but in general the image quality is decent. Video quality is pretty good. Battery life is acceptable -- I have never used up a fully-charged battery on a full day of picture-taking. All in all, I got what I paid for -- a modern entry-level digital camera that is neither fantastic nor a dud.

Problems: For such a small camera, it is surprising that the flash is too bright. It tends to max out the brightness on any reflective surface near the camera. Image quality in low-to-moderate lighting in indoor settings is somewhat posterized and hazy. The camera seems to have a very hard time focusing in macro mode. The red-eye flash sometimes does not eliminate red-eye. When there are multiple subjects, photos can be out of focus.

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report
bazrl
0 out of 0 users have found this review helpful
By: bazrl posted on May 22, 2008 UTC

Opinion: I bought this camera as I wanted one that was the smallest in the shop and cheap.
It cost me £120 and fits neatly and easily in my pocket.
As this was almost the cheapest camera in the shop I wasn't expecting too much from it, just something that would take some fun photos when I was on a weekend away with the lads.

Problems: Photo quality with the flash indoors is not very good, but was good enough for what I wanted.

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report
12