Olympus FE-4000 - Test Shots

Olympus FE-4000 - Test Shots - ISO Performance

Over the next few pages we show a range of test shots. On this page the full size image at the minimum and maximum ISO settings have been reduced to let you see the full image, and a series of full resolution crops have taken from original images at a range of ISO settings to show the overall image quality. These ISO test images are shot indoors using shaded natural light.

----

This is the full frame at 100 ISO.

----

Even at 100 ISO there are traces of noise, and the camera took over 20 attempts to focus on this.

----

Noise is also visible at 200 ISO, and colour is also faded.

----

There is more noise at 400 ISO.

----

At 800 ISO the image noise is a big problem.

----

1600 ISO is practically unusable.

----

This is the full frame at maximum ISO.

----

Comments

Please wait while we process your request

Please wait while we retrieve the user's information

Bio

Your bio is currently empty. Now is a great time to fill in your profile.

This profile is private.

This profile is only shared with friends.

This profile is under review.

We were unable to request friendship with this user.

We were unable to request friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

Your friendship request has been sent to this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

You are no longer friends with this user.

We were unable to ignore this user.

We were unable to ignore this user. Are you logged in?

This user is now ignored.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user. Are you logged in?

This user is no longer ignored.

pluck_user_mp-abuse_too_long_err

12 comments

Sort:

Name withheld

Sean Groarke

3:35 PM on 25 January, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Sean Groarke. Show Details Hide Details

"The Olympus FE-4000 is a lousy camera even by budget compact standards."

Overall: 5/10

You guys crack me up sometimes. What would it have to do to get a 1 or 2? Cause loss of a limb? Blind you? Emit poison gas?

Score:

Ben

3:36 PM on 25 January, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Ben. Show Details Hide Details

Isn't a score of 5 rather high for a camera that was berated from start to finish? It certainly didn't sound like a product that could be described as "50/50".

Gordon394

4:02 PM on 25 January, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Gordon394. Show Details Hide Details

@Ben - scores aren't averages. Ideally there would be no scores, just the text and people would assign their own score in their heads from reading it and finding was is and isn't applicable to them. Unfortunately everyone likes to look at a score!

Noodles

4:24 PM on 25 January, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Noodles. Show Details Hide Details

Just after Christmas, my local Tesco Supershed got in two pallets (yes, builders pallets!) worth of these for £89.99 each. They were all gone in a few days!

Thinking aloud, maybe Olympus is being cleverer then we think, the target market (budget and impulse) for this camera will likely only view the images on an undemanding laptop screen, the camera LCD itself, or a low resolution LCD frame. Even if this camera's files are taken to a high street printer, they'll most certainly only be 6X4's, where the massive (to us, at least) flaws won't be so apparent.

4:53 PM on 25 January, 2010

@Sean - glad someone is on the same wavelength/planet :)

MrGodfrey

5:32 PM on 25 January, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore MrGodfrey. Show Details Hide Details

Noodles - you're correct that the target market for this kind of camera will not notice or care about most of the flaws in their cameras, so long as they are better than the average mobile phone camera. Poor auto-exposure is maybe the only thing that would really be noticeable on low-res LCDs or in small cheap prints.

My problem here is that if you wanted a cheap digital camera that offers the bare minimum of features, and don't particularly care about quality, then you could actually buy a better one from a "budget" specialist like Praktica for up to 50% less. Real low-end cameras like this are often generic cameras sold with slight modifications under a variety of different brand names anyway (or at the very least use generic cheap lenses and other components) so there truly is no advantage to buying into a "big name", and a significant disadvantage in the price. So Olympus is certainly being clever (making a clearly substandard product while knowing that many people will happily pay over £100 in the mistaken belief that the brand name is an indicator of quality). Hopefully consumers will be clever too and spend their money elsewhere - but your story about the local Tesco suggests I'm being hopelessly optimistic about that.

5:46 PM on 25 January, 2010

I promise I'm not trying to kick off one of those "wot about the scores" arguments. But I cannot let it pass since you actually came out and said "Unfortunately everyone likes to look at a score!"

Well, out of your own mouth... etc. I agree with you. Everyone does like to look at a score, alas. So give sensible scores then! Someone might skim the review, not reading too much. They then see it on offer somewhere, TR gave it 5/10, so it can't be too bad, and buys it. Then finds it's a pile of doggy-poo.

Gordon: either do the scores better or drop them. If the written review is correct (and I tend to believe it as I like your reviews and trust them, scores excepted) then the 5/10 is a nonsense.

Terry Love

7:26 PM on 25 January, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Terry Love. Show Details Hide Details

What's the chances you got a "Friday afternoon special" and that most other samples would put up a better showing?

I'm perfectly prepared to accept even a company like Olympus could turn out a genuine turkey, (I've developed a brand loyalty since my OM1/OM1n days back in the 70's/80), so maybe I'm just looking for an out for them. Then again, I'm not on struck on their compact models that I've looked at anyway.

8:54 PM on 25 January, 2010

Terry - I've used several of Olympus' compacts (some of which are excellent), and generally those in the FE range really are quite poor indeed. But re-reading the article, an 8-second shot-to-shot time sounds unbelievably slow even for a crappy camera like this, so I wonder if perhaps you are right about it being a bad sample?

Chris Reed

11:11 AM on 27 January, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Chris Reed. Show Details Hide Details

Not really a patch on the Panny Lumix FS-62 I picked up recently for lass than a 100 with a leather case and all metal body and a decent lens.

Where do Olympus get off?

Please wait while we file your abuse report.

We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.

We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.

Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.