Olympus Stylus Verve: Fashion vs Performance
by Stephen Caston on November 4, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Battery Performance
Our general method for battery testing is to reset the camera to its default settings and change the recording mode to the highest quality option. Then, we take 5 pictures without the flash and 2 pictures with the flash until the battery is dead. For more information on our battery test, please refer to our Testing Procedures page. For this test, we used the included Li-30B Lithium-Ion Rechargeable battery. The battery was fully drained before charging for the test.| Number of shots taken in one battery charge |
| 400 |
In our battery test, the Stylus Verve did not perform very well. Although this does not really come as a shock, considering the small 3.6V 645mAh LI-30B rechargeable battery, it is still below average for an ultra-compact camera. In short, we would expect the Verve to hold up pretty well through a day of heavy shooting, but don't expect it to last over a weekend. Prices for a spare LI-30B start at $30.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
10 Comments
View All Comments
shuttleboi - Thursday, November 4, 2004 - link
When is Anandtech going to review portable storage devices/personal video players?Souka - Thursday, November 4, 2004 - link
grab a Canon S410 for $275 delievered from a variety of online places...jiulemoigt - Thursday, November 4, 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!Foxbat121 - Thursday, November 4, 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).AtaStrumf - Thursday, November 4, 2004 - link
Looks like a nice little camera. Its a shame its so expensive.stephencaston - Thursday, November 4, 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.WooDaddy - Thursday, November 4, 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 4, 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 4, 2004 - link
That is one hairy arm =)CasmirRadon - Thursday, November 4, 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.