Photosmart M307: HP's Newest is Put to the Test
by Stephen Caston on November 27, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
General Image Quality
For these pictures, the camera was reset to its factory default setting. Then, it was set to its highest quality recording setting. The pictures were then taken in Auto mode unless stated otherwise. Portrait-style images have been rotated using Irfanview's "lossless operations". Click on a thumbnail to view the full-size image. The crops below the thumbnails are 100%. All images are in sRGB color space.  ISO 100, 1/1100, f/4.8 Click to enlarge. |
 ISO 100, 1/500, f/4.8 Click to enlarge. |
 ISO 100, 1/1250, f/4.8 Click to enlarge. |
 |
 |
 |
 ISO 100, 1/310, f/4.9 Click to enlarge. |
 ISO 100, 1/160, f/7.8 Click to enlarge. |
 ISO 100, 1/400, f/4.8 (Macro) Click to enlarge. |
 |
 |
 |
In the first 4 samples above, we have highlighted what we think are some important image quality problems. Firstly, in several images, we spotted "jaggies" along diagonal lines. These "jaggies" are a result of the M307's over-sharpening process. In the second sample, we cropped out a portion of the image that displays moiré, which is a more common problem with "lower" resolution cameras. In the third sample, we wanted to point out something that we feel is the most significant weak point of the M307 - loss of detail. In many of the images taken with this camera, in the place of detail, we noticed this fuzzy, muddy appearance. This image also displays the rather small dynamic range of the camera. In the fourth sample, we are looking at more detail loss, but this time, it is concentrated in shadow areas. Objects with plenty of light retain a moderate amount of detail. However, there is a dramatic loss of detail for objects in the shade.
Things look a lot better in samples 5 and 6. In both pictures, the image quality looks pretty decent overall. In the last shot, the M307 proves it can take sharp macro pictures. In the end though, we aren't very impressed with the M307's image quality. The biggest problems are over-sharpening, moiré, loss of detail in shadows, and high noise. We were especially surprised to see so much noise at the lowest ISO setting.
Low Light
ISO 100, 2 sec, f/4.7
Click to enlarge.
In this two-second exposure, the image is still quite noisy for ISO 100. Unfortunately, the camera limits the shutter speed to a maximum of two seconds so there is no possibility of performing longer exposures. Also, throughout the image, we spotted several stuck pixels.
Movie Mode
(320x240, 30 fps)
Click to view.
As the sample above demonstrates, although 30 fps is great to have, a video clip at 320x240 is hard to get excited about. In addition to the video's noisy appearance, we were also disappointed with the audio quality. There is a constant hissing sound that can be heard during playback. Although we weren't expecting much from the video mode on this camera, the unbearable audio and low resolution renders its functionality nearly useless.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
8 Comments
View All Comments
MadAd - Monday, November 29, 2004 - link
320x240 for video? Thats worse than a creative 1mp camera that i picked up over 2 years ago, that did 352x288 back then. Why are the manufacturers not moving on with movie clip mode like they have done with the photo eye?If the eye in a similar priced cam is now 4-6 Mp for stills, why is movie mode not at least 640x480? Sure its a chunk more memory, so just buy a bigger card or switch the mode down to what they have now??
I guess theres something im missing here, I just dont understand it.
brian_riendeau - Monday, November 29, 2004 - link
It is nice to see a review be a little more negative, however this comment near the end really left a bad taste in my mouth:"there is a bright side. Firstly, the Photosmart M307 is priced very reasonably at ~$165."
No its not! For $165 its total junk. It is like right at the end of the article they just had to throw somethign in to make people think that all camera for less than $200 are junk :(
DukeN - Sunday, November 28, 2004 - link
HP = terrible cameras. Avoid like the plague!Then again people do buy Fords, and Compaqs so they will buy HPs as well...
phaxmohdem - Saturday, November 27, 2004 - link
I must concur that HP cameras suck in general. Now I have never had the opportunity to play with a "top model" HP digicam. I own three digicams for home use, two for sucky eBay pictures and one for personal nice quality pics. I chose to get two Olympus D-520 Zoom cams for my ebay cams (These are very good for ebay pictures as you can get very close to an object without it loosing focus, though it only shoots upto 2.0 MP's and over-all aquality of the picture is not grainy but still mediocre.) For my persoal cam I when with a Minolta Dimage F100 4.0 MP camera. IT is nice and compact and takes beautiful pictures (though not as close as the olympus cams) My only beef is that it is a tad slow and the flash is positioned so that your finger will always be in front of it and block it if you do not think about it. (The autofocus is a little crazy too with up close objects and its a toss up whether or not it will be in focus at the time the shutter clicks open.) But overall I have never owned a better picture quality cam. I would kill for a digital SLR cam but they are a little outta my price range.But yeah, avoid HP! Prices may tempt you but you get what you pay for (and in HPs case you get a little less ussually)
stephenbrooks - Saturday, November 27, 2004 - link
What I dislike most about digital cameras is the laggy shutter delay. Prefocus sometimes doesn't work if you move around a bit or the subject of you picture is.AtaStrumf - Saturday, November 27, 2004 - link
I had the displeasure of working with a 2 year old HP 2 MP, no zoom 315 model and it's preety horrible even for a 2 year old camera. I had hoped they had changed, but I guess they haven't. Too bad.Bonesdad - Saturday, November 27, 2004 - link
I have never been impressed with HP digicams. We are forced to use them at work, at least until I made an executive decision and bought a Canon A75 (which the last time I checked was about $199). I hope people do their research when looking for a good camera and avoid HP.Souka - Saturday, November 27, 2004 - link
Get a Canon SD100 for that money....If looking at the 4mp Kodak model, go for the Canon S410 or SD300. (S410 better pic quality, SD300 TOP notch video...60fps capable!)