5 Megapixels for < $300: Kodak DX4530, Olympus C-50 Zoom, Casio QV-R51
by Stephen Caston on July 15, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Color Reproduction
For our color tests, we reset all cameras to their factory default settings. Each camera was set to record using the highest quality (compressed) option. We took a picture on each camera using Auto WB. Because the Olympus and the Casio had options for Tungsten WB, we took another picture comparing the two. The Casio was the only camera with the ability to set Manual WB. Click on a picture below to download the full-size file.| Auto WB | Tungsten WB | Manual WB | |
| Kodak |  Click to enlarge. |
N/A | N/A |
| Olympus |  Click to enlarge. |
 Click to enlarge. |
N/A |
| Casio |  Click to enlarge. |
 Click to enlarge. |
 Click to enlarge. |
| Reference Chart ("actual colors") |  |
||
Crops
| Kodak DX4530 | Olympus C-50 Zoom | Casio QV-R51 | |
| Auto WB |  |
 |
 |
Starting with the Auto WB, it looks like the DX4530 had some trouble reproducing red in our Auto WB crop. It is hard to distinguish it from the pink section directly above it. However, if you look at the full color chart, the rest of the colors translated pretty well. Although the C-50 Zoom did a better job producing a realistic red, the rest of the chart suffers from a yellowish tint. On the QV-R51, the colors are kind of dull. The full color chart reveals a blue cast over most of the colors.
The Auto and Tungsten settings on the Olympus camera produced very noticeable differences. On the Tungsten setting, the colors are very accurate. In Auto mode, there is just a slight yellowish cast. The difference between the Auto, Tungsten, and Manual settings on the Casio yielded almost no noticeable difference in the colors. The only thing that we could pick up was that the Tungsten setting made the image slightly lighter than in Auto and Manual. Overall, it looks like the Kodak DX4530 had the best color reproduction in Auto WB mode followed by the Olympus C-50 Zoom.
Studio Shot
In this test, we compared each camera's ability to reproduce our studio shot using different WB settings.| Auto WB | Tungsten WB | Manual WB | |
| Kodak |  Click to enlarge. |
N/A | N/A |
| Olympus |  Click to enlarge. |
 Click to enlarge. |
N/A |
| Casio |  Click to enlarge. |
 Click to enlarge. |
 Click to enlarge. |
In our studio shot, you can see that the Kodak produced the most accurate colors in Auto WB mode and the Olympus did a great job with a Tungsten setting. The Casio had a bluish cast in all but the Manual WB setting.
Built-in Flash
For the flash test, all cameras were set to Auto mode. Each picture was taken from 5 feet away.| Kodak DX4530 | Olympus C-50 Zoom | Casio QV-R51 |
 |
 |
 |
We were generally disappointed with the results of all 3 cameras in the flash test. The Kodak was too pink/red; the Olympus, too dark and yellow; and the Casio, too light. If we had to choose one of them, it would be a close call between Olympus and Casio. The Olympus was a bit dark and had more contrast, while the Casio was too light and almost washed-out.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
9 Comments
View All Comments
LX - Friday, July 16, 2004 - link
A review of digicams on AnandTech is like a review of CPUs on dpreview or a review of motherboards on imaging-resource.Choosing digicams for comparison based on their pixel count is like comparing CPUs based on their MHz.
Please stick to your field of competence!
Mermaidman - Friday, July 16, 2004 - link
What next? A review of the new and improved ROOMBA robot vacuum? :preljam - Friday, July 16, 2004 - link
This review was really below the 'Anandtech standard'. The comments posted above are all valid, but you completely forgot to do indoor tests.Cameras (especially small ones) suffer from not being able to produce a sharp image in low light conditions. Taking three shots outdoors, even on a cloudy day is going to give you decent results 90% of the time. If you want to see noise, try taking indoor shots with the flash on. In indoor shots flash range becomes very important (portrait-only flash is unacceptable), and the amount of noise in the background is something that's a very real problem.
Your testing methodology is roughly like taking a Celeron, a P IV and and AMD64 and running IE page rendering tests - yes, there may be differences, but that's not the distinguishing feature.
nigham - Friday, July 16, 2004 - link
I think the review was done fairly well - though I am disappointed to say that at the end of it, I'm certainly not going to buy any of these things. All of them sure seem to have a few problems.physologically speaking, the best feeling i get after an anandtech article is when i really feel - hey i should actually go ahead and buy this thing... zilch of that here.
so what you probably need is to review all of these along with some really good cameras (and i'm sure they're out there - having used a DSC-P93 i can say that the picture quality is definitely better than the pics i've seen in this review).
if price range is your method of choosing "similar" cameras, i'd agree with SKiller and say go ahead and include 3/4 mp cameras if they've got much better quality, alongside the 5 mp ones, and let us make the choice of what we want to pay for. personally i can't for the life of me think what i'd ever do with a 2500x2000 pixel image.
i think for a first effort in the humanly-priced cameras, this was OK and i'm sure you guys will only keep getting better.
EddNog - Friday, July 16, 2004 - link
I say screw it and just buy a Canon. ;-Pianmills - Thursday, July 15, 2004 - link
ahahaha:)
WooDaddy - Thursday, July 15, 2004 - link
This is a TOTAL waste of time. Let me count the ways:1) All of the pages were direct testing method rips from dpreview.
2) THE CAMERAS ALL CAME FROM DIFFERENT YEARS (development cycles)!!! 2002, 2003, 2004?!? COME ON!! If you are going to have a comparision, compare cameras built within the same time frame! Do you think Anand, Wesley or Kris would attempt to do an apples to apples direct comparo on CPUs that were three years apart!?! NO!
3) WTF is with this conclusion!? THERE IS NO ADDED VALUE TO ALL THAT TESTING YOU DID! If you realized that those cameras weren't similar enough, the review should've stopped. The only difference you could find was price!? All Anandtech readers should feel insulted by that.
4) What was the basis for choosing these cameras?When CPU or Mobo comparision are done, they are done with products that are marketed to be similar. I didn't see the logic in choosing these three.. as a matter of fact, no reasoning was given at all.
Lastly, Anand, Kris, or whoever senior editors.. I am disappointed in YOU more so than anyone else. Don't you review the articles posted? Virtually every single article that you've posted in the years have had relevance, structure, in-depth conclusion, value-added information to bring upon very educated purchasing decisions. Two hiccups back to back like this is horrible. You've done research, so research what makes a good digital camera review... NO! Consider your purpose first. Anandtech is not a digital camera review site. That is such a large genre and almost completely separate from IT-based products. It's like going to McDonalds and not only asking and getting a filet mignon, but then expecting it to be as good ...
To slightly calm down, I don't believe that Anandtech is the appropiate forum for articles like this. I also didn't think the review represented the quality and in-depth nature of the majority of the reviews here. I believe the attempt add digital cameras to the review list is showing that the genre of the website is starting to lose its direction. Anandtech is a IT and consumer level PC product review site, not a general blog, review everything website. Digital cameras have links to this world but are not a subset.
WooDaddy - Thursday, July 15, 2004 - link
Look.......
I'm really pissed about this. Let me calm down and post later...
SKiller - Thursday, July 15, 2004 - link
5mp cameras at this price range are still not a very good option IMHO. They tend to sacrifice quality and features for the added resolution. I think that 3-4mp cameras at this price can give much better results unless you absolutely have to have 5mp.I'd consider Canon PowerShot A75, A80, Fujifilm FinePix F601Z, Kodak DX6340, and Samsung Digimax V4 from the "more advanced features" category.
Good review though.