Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
70 of 76 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Tested at the store... Disappointed., March 24, 2009
I very recently bought the new Fuji Z33 WP camera, but since I am unhappy with the high levels of image noise, I will be returning it and looking for a replacement. The other top camera on my list was the Olympus 550WP. I went to a major electronics store yesterday and had the opportunity to play with the 550WP. The salesman even let me put my microSD card into the camera to save some test shots to view on my computer at home.
The image quality does not make me excited to buy this camera. The pictures show a significant amount of noise, even when I forced the ISO down to 100. Every shot without a flash looks pale and slightly hazy. With a flash, the image quality improved, but there is still an unreasonable amount of image noise. The best shots were taken of objects about 10 feet away. This was a good distance to prevent the flash from washing out the subject, but still providing an adequate amount of light to get a decent picture. Even those shots seemed to lack sharpness. They were OK, but I guess I expected more. I understand that there are trade-offs in image quality when buying a waterproof camera, but I had hoped that they wouldn't be this bad.
Besides image quality, my only other complaint was the couple of seconds delay between shots. The screen goes blank, so you can't even compose your next shot while you wait. The noticible delay upon startup and between shots was a deal-breaker for me when deciding if the image quality was acceptable.
On a positive note, the size and shape of the camera is pleasing and it feels well-built and sturdy. It is not too heavy, and I didn't feel like I needed to be overly protective of it. It's not ultra-thin, but it could easily fit into a pocket. Also, I really liked the menu graphics. The menu structure seems very similar to that of the Olympus weatherproof cameras from the last couple of years, but the icons on the 550WP are in color and are much brighter. This may seem trivial, but it definitely makes for a flashier interface than the couple of models just prior to the 550WP. I also tried out the Tough Series 8000 and noticed that it shares the very cool, updated menu graphics with the 550WP.
I wanted to like this camera and it was my top choice to replace the Fuji Z33, but I was not satisfied enough with the test shots I took to spend my money on it. The slightly older and mixed-reviewed Olympus 850SW that I tested on the same visit responded much more quickly on startup, on auto-focusing, and in recovering between shots. It felt fast in all areas and the pictures were much better than the Oly 550WP and the Fuji Z33 WP. The image quality on the 850SW wasn't perfect either, but I was much more excited about its performance than the two newer cameras. Since it has been out for a little longer than the 550WP and Z33, the 850SW can be found for a similar price. Without spending the extra $100 to step up to the next level of image quality and performance, I think my money is going to the Oly 850SW instead of the Oly 550WP or the Fuji Z33.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
36 of 38 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Not perfect, but not bad. You get what you pay for., June 29, 2009
I bought this for an upcoming trip to take snorkeling, but first wanted to test it out. So I went to a pool party for a 4 year old, and gave the camera to my 6 year old neice and told her to do whatever she wanted with it. I posted 2 pics above for you to see. I figured it a good score just for still working after a 6 year old dropped it into the pool twice, and once even got a nice big scratch on the side, but still works great. The pics aren't perfect, a little washed out, but the only reason I bought this camera was to take it underwater, and the price. I'm sure if you spent more money for the canon it might take better pics, but these will do just fine for me. So if you are looking for a basic underwater camera that takes decent pics, more for photo albums than publishing, this camera is probably for you. The kids LOVED it, and if my 6 year old neice can work it underwater, everyone else should have no trouble.
The only Con I have is that the battery was almost completely drained after about an hour and a half underwater. Don't know if it uses up more power somehow underwater, but that is my only concern. Haven't tested it long enough to know if that is normal or not yet.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Very good, middle-of-the-road, versatile point & shoot camera, September 20, 2009
This being the first digital camera I have owned, though I have used several extensively (including Olympus & Canon DSLRs semi-profesionally), the reader should bear in mind my limited frame of reference to other digital cameras. I am and have been for 35 years an avid film photographer. As digital photography has finally advanced to the level where a comparable finished photo can be taken with a camera affordable to non pros (or at least non-photogeeks!), I took the plunge.
The waterproof function was an afterthought in my case, though a welcome one. It has performed well in this regard. I mainly wanted not to worry or think about water and I haven't had to. The 550WP is not at all bothered by steady rain, splashes, and a dunk or two in streams, lakes, tubs, etc. Score one!
I am generally frustrated and critical of digital cameras (save DLSRs) for their automaticity. I have yet to see a model that allows manual and independent adjustment of shutter and aperture, so lets forget that here. The manual features available on the 550WP took a while to get used to (white balance, shot-by-shot ISO/ASA, exposure compensation, flash mode, etc.), but give predictable and useful results, if with less fine control than I would like. Again, apparently a very common if not universal attribute of point and shoot digital cameras.
Finished image quality, without further editing or processing is excellent, and I found none of the issues with grain, washed out images in bright light, shadows, or poor low light non-flash images. The one qualification I have here is also a bit of a compliment: flash shots, indoor and out are generally excellent, without much if any harsh reflection washing out, or other defects. Remarkably and easily so, such that I found it very easy to get very good shots, especially indoors (where reflection and overlighting are the most problem). My old Olympus and Canon film slrs, circa 1990 and 1994 are must more complicated to yield such flash shots. Where this is a criticsm is that there is a gap (how many lumens/lux I don't know, haven't had a seperate light meter in ages) between the light level where flash is neccesary and where not so. The camera, if allowed to, defaults to using the flash, if at low instensity, where if aperture, shutter, and ISO were truly and independently adjustable by the user, the picture would be well lit, and more naturalistic than any flash photo ever could be. But as above, the flash is remarkably unobtrusive and yields uniform lighting. Outdoors the flash shots are good also, and in all cases the flash is both ample, and finessed, by which I mean the flash does not simply ignite, nor simply alter the synchronization between flash and shutter, but flashes before, during, (seemingly) after the shutter, in pulses of varying intensity/width, which clearly alter according to lighting conditions and other factors. Good photos all around.
The various modes and settings seem intimidating even to an old shutterbug like me. In the end it took less than a week to master basic functions of what, where, and when. And again, these are all mostly comparable to other models/makes. My criticisms seem all to level at digital cameras in general (save DSLRs), rather than this model: lack of manual modes, inadequate audio or other feedback on shutter release, slowness of "winding"(it takes a second or two after a shot before the camera is ready even to begin composing again), and the lack of an optical viewfinder (the LCD is nice for review, but a real viewfinder is much easy and faster, things being equal, to frame and set shots).
I should say that I have fairly extensive experience using Photoshop (and earlier, more primitive photo editing software), going back to the early 1990's well before digital cameras were either affordable or of a quality that could then even compete with an Instamatic or Polaroid. That said, for purposes of retouching, color correction, or other processing to produce a finished straight photograph, the Stylus 550-WP largely shoots and prints without *any* need for post-camera work (effects for artistic and dramatic reasons are another matter). I count this as a big deal, since the early digital cameras I used around 2001 were not just lower resolution (MP rating is the most oversold spec besides), but full of defects: bad color, 'noise' and other digital artifacts, over-under exposure, distortion, et al. This model is mercifully free of virtually all of these. All of the criticisms in other reveiws of this model I have read, that weren't based on irrationalities, seem to me to be expecting images typical of a camera with a street price of OVER $500, rather than this model, in the $140-170 range.
As an experienced photographer making a beginning at digital photography, I can recommend this camera and a very good model for people like me and for others wanting a solid, basic model that produces excellent prints (I do print, a lot, and the final determiner of what is a good photo should be held as such an object rather than an image on a computer screen, no matter what the resolution; no display commonly available for under $5000 can display at full resolution a 10 megapixel image anyway). The addition of video w/ audio (I know, that is most models now), and a number of fine details of design and finish make this camera a great package for me. (I don't think I'll ever get over being able to shoot away with no concern about the cost of film or processing! You'd think there would be a real surge of nascent Annie Leibovitzs and Alfred Steiglitzs out there with all the practice this technology allows, but so far I don't see it. . .) A good buy, good optics,solidly built, dependable, from an exteemed camera company, with the limitations and caveats mentioned.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Saving...
for detailed specifications for the Olympus Stylus 550WP Blue Digital Camera 
