The Timing Tests

* NOTE: For all of our time tests, the camera is reset to its factory default settings and set to record using the highest resolution and quality setting. The camera was set to Auto mode. We also disabled all sounds. A Fujifilm 512MB xD-Picture card was used.

Before reading our results, please refer to our Testing Procedures page.

Startup Time

The startup time is recorded from the moment the power button is pushed to the moment the shutter sounds. The camera was set to record in Auto mode with startup sounds and screens disabled.

 Startup time (seconds)

At a startup time of 3.76 seconds, the Stylus Verve showed a fairly middle-of-the-road performance. For example, the ultra-compact Casio Exilim Ex-Z40 had an amazingly fast startup time of just 2.15 seconds. Although we can't quite call the Verve's startup time "slow", it is certainly not fast.

Shutter Lag

To record shutter lag, we perform two tests. For the first test, we pre-focus the lens and measure the amount of time it takes the camera to take a picture after the shutter button is pressed. The second test measures the time it takes for the camera to take a picture after we press the shutter button without pre-focusing. Each test is performed 3 times and the results are averaged. For more information regarding our testing procedures, please refer to our Testing Procedures page

 With Pre-focus (seconds)  Without Pre-focus (seconds)
0.13 0.64

Both with and without pre-focusing, the Stylus Verve had fairly average shutter lag times. When we pre-focused the camera, the lag was just 0.13 seconds. When we did not pre-focus the camera, the shutter lag was 0.64 seconds. Although both of these times are reasonably fast, they are not really impressive compared to other cameras that we have tested. We should also mention that because of the f/3.5 maximum aperture, the Stylus Verve has some difficulty focusing in low light. An AF-assist lamp would have helped tremendously. Since the Stylus Verve does not have one, the camera will perform its best in brightly-lit situations.

Write Times

We recorded 5 different write times with a Fujifilm xD-Picture card:

Single Shot - The time it takes for a single image to be completely written to the flash card (the time the "activity light" is on)
Shot To Shot (STS) - The time until the second shot is able to be taken after the first (shutter to shutter)
Shot To Shot w/Flash - The time it takes for the camera to take two pictures with the flash starting from the moment the first flash is fired to the moment the second is fired
Continuous Drive - The total time for the camera to shoot a burst of frames from the first shutter to the last shutter
Clear Buffer for Next Burst - The time it takes the camera to clear its internal buffer after a burst of images

We set the camera to the highest resolution and quality setting. We performed each test three times and averaged the results. Below are the resolution, quality setting, and average file size used for the tests.

2272x1704, SHQ, Avg. file size = 2.56 MB

 Single Shot  Shot To Shot  Shot to Shot w/Flash  Continuous Drive
(7 frames)
 Clear Buffer for Next Burst
3.08 1.93 11.47 5.18 20.05

It takes the Stylus Verve approximately 3.08 seconds to write a single image to the flash card. However, at the highest quality and resolution, the camera has a buffer large enough for 7 images. With Shot to Shot time, the Verve showed a somewhat average speed, taking 1.93 seconds between shots. After 7 frames, the internal buffer is full and the camera slows to 2.85 seconds between shots. The camera shows a disappointing Shot to Shot w/Flash time of 11.47 seconds. We were fairly impressed with the Verve's Continuous drive ability. We were able to shoot 7 frames in 5.18 seconds (1.35 fps). The downside is that it takes 20.05 seconds to clear the buffer after this burst.

Overall, we were disappointed with the speed of the Stylus Verve. Although startup and shutter lag times are not horrible, they are not very impressive either. When it comes to write times, Shot to Shot w/out Flash time is manageable, but the camera becomes very slow with the use of the flash. In addition, it is nice to be able to shoot at 1.35 fps for 7 frames. However, since it takes 20 seconds to clear the buffer after a burst, the usefulness of the continuous drive mode is questionable.

Battery Performance Resolving Fine Lines


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! Reply
  • 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). Reply
  • AtaStrumf - Thursday, November 4, 2004 - link

    Looks like a nice little camera. Its a shame its so expensive. Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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 =) Reply
  • 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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now