Olympus Stylus Verve Specifications

  Olympus Stylus Verve
Release Date September 2004
Price ~$300 - $350
Pixel Count 4.0 Million
Camera Type Compact
Highest Resolution 2272x1704
Lower Resolutions 2048x1536, 1600x1200, 1280x960, 1024x768, 640x480
Sensor Type CCD
Sensor Size 1/2.5"
LCD Screen Size 1.8"
Optical Zoom 2x; 35 - 70mm equivalent
Focus Range 1.6' - Infinity
Macro 3.2"
Digital Zoom 4x
Lens Thread No
Auto Focus Yes
Auto Focus Type TTL
Manual Focus No
AF-assist Lamp No
Aperture Range F3.5 - 4.9
Shutter Speeds 4 - 1/1000th sec.
ISO Auto (64 - 500), 64, 100, 200, 400
Flash Built-in
Flash Range W: 0.7 - 9.2'; T: 0.7 - 6.0'
Flash Compensation None
Exposure Compensation +/- 2 stops in 1/3 increments
White Balance Auto, Daylight, Overcast, Tungsten, Fluorescent
Bracketing No
Metering Digital ESP Multi-pattern, Spot
Color Space RGB
Aperture Priority No
Shutter Speed Priority No
Manual Exposure No
Continuous Drive 7 frames at 1.3 fps
Self-Timer Yes, 12 sec.
Storage Method xD-Picture Card
Storage Included 16MB xD-Picture card
Compressed Format JPG
Uncompressed Format None
Quality Settings SHQ/HQ (2272x1704)
Video clips 320x240, 160x120, 15 fps, w/sound, QuickTime MOV, unlimited duration
Battery Type Li-30B Lithium-Ion Rechargeable
Charger Included Yes, 110 mins.
PC Interface USB
TV-out Yes
Tripod Mount Yes, metal
Weight (w/out battery or card) 4.06 oz.
Dimensions 95 mm x 55.5 mm x 27.5 mm

 Included in the Box
  • Olympus Stylus Verve Camera
  • 16MB xD-Picture Card
  • Li-30B Lithium-Ion Rechargeable battery
  • Battery Charger (wall)
  • USB cable
  • Neck strap
  • Basic manual
  • Software CD
  • User's Guide CD

Index The Design: Olympus Stylus Verve


View All Comments

  • shuttleboi - Thursday, November 04, 2004 - link

    When is Anandtech going to review portable storage devices/personal video players?
  • Souka - Thursday, November 04, 2004 - link

    grab a Canon S410 for $275 delievered from a variety of online places...

  • jiulemoigt - Thursday, November 04, 2004 - link

    you'd think after getting acess to fuji's electronics they'd have really nice optic combined with their really nice lenses... only these look cool but have crappy eletronics and crappy lenses! Reply
  • Foxbat121 - Thursday, November 04, 2004 - link

    I bought one for my wife for just $299 (Newegg). It's a nice camera for what it is intended for (point and shoot in a compact design). Overall, it is well worth the money I paid for considering the similar sized cameras are no cheaper either with lower resolution (Canon SD110, 3MP). Reply
  • AtaStrumf - Thursday, November 04, 2004 - link

    Looks like a nice little camera. Its a shame its so expensive. Reply
  • stephencaston - Thursday, November 04, 2004 - link

    WooDaddy, thanks for the comment. I agree, it is shocking to see such jagged edges in the pictures taken by this camera. As for the details of Olympus's image processing, I'm sorry I can't offer any specifics. Since this is a point and shoot camera, we can only assume that Olympus designed the process this way so that users would not need or want to post-process the images at all. Indeed, if these images are printed at the popular 6x4" format, the problem would be hard to see. And it looks like Olympus knows this. Reply
  • WooDaddy - Thursday, November 04, 2004 - link

    Stephen can you comment on this for me?

    As a previous owner of an olympus camera (back in 1999) it just seems that Olympus doesn't get it when it comes to handle aliasing? Looking at the resolving fine lines page, it looks like their aliasing algorithm or low-pass filter is non-existant. Do you see it too? Suggestions?
  • WooDaddy - Thursday, November 04, 2004 - link

    Good article.

    I'm glad a review finally came out for this camera... But I'm disappointed that Olympus feels it's worth $399. There are a PLETHORA of other cameras that perform so much better than this one. I agree that the price is too much. Don't be afraid to say that. Hell, I think it's just plain ridiculous. I'm starting to think the limits have been met for the megapixel squeeze; meaning a 4mp sensor in a camera with a tiny/crappy lens just is a waste of money. Especially when the aperture isn't fast nor slow.

    Maybe a Foveon sensor in the same package... but nope.

    I disagree with #1 though. Viewfinder in compact cameras have always been limiting and inaccurate. I understand the feeling of pressing up a camera against your face just makes you feel good and professional like, but in the digital world where you can take better pictures now, LCD-only is the way to go. Heck I wish I had a big 2.5" screen on mine.
  • goku21 - Thursday, November 04, 2004 - link

    That is one hairy arm =) Reply
  • CasmirRadon - Thursday, November 04, 2004 - link

    Very very pretty.

    You know though, all other negatives aside (did anyone expect it to perform above average?) I got to say that I really don't like the idea of not having a quality viewfinder on these ultracompact cameras. I just plain don't like taking pictures with the LCD screen.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now