Home / Cameras / Camera / Olympus mju 9010 / Test Shots - ISO Performance

Olympus mju 9010 - Test Shots - ISO Performance

By Cliff Smith



Our Score:


User Score:

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 pictures were taken indoors using reflected natural light


This is the full frame at 64 ISO.


Even at 64 ISO there is visible noise.


Noise is slightly worse at 100 ISO.


Slightly worse noise still at 200 ISO.


Noise is starting to become a problem at 400 ISO.


A lot of detail has been lost to noise at 800 ISO.


Image quality at 1600 ISO is about average for a 14MP small sensor camera.


This is the full frame at 1600 ISO.



October 23, 2010, 12:16 am

Another bitter disappointment for Olympus fans! No Olympus camera around the £200 mark should get less than 8/10 for IQ; a 6/10 should have whatever may be the Japanese equivalent of P45s flying out of the Personnel Department in flocks.

A few more embarrassments from my beloved Olympus and I will have to consider filing all the branding off my kit and/or only going to events at my club with a brown paper bag over my head. What's got into Olympus? Total lack of pride? Not enough money to fully develop products before putting them on sale?

Bertie 1

October 23, 2010, 1:48 am

Considering the astounding Fuji F70EXR can be got for circa £140 brand new and a refurbished Fuji F72EXR (same cam--different colour) for LESS than £120 delivered and whose performance will leave the poor old Olympus dead in the water...well, it's a no-brainer, surely!

I can see the price of the mju 9010 tumbling soon but even if it dropped to the £120 mark the Fuji competition is just too compelling. Why is it that in the compact camera class Olympus are always the bridesmaid and never the bride.

Great review again, Cliff from a source I'm sure is totally reliable and thankfully devoid of all the nit-picking details that certain other reviewers dwell on and are for most of us irrelevant in the real world.

comments powered by Disqus