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
Final Words
As far as HP's entry-level digicams go, we are still waiting to be impressed. In our review of the Photosmart M307, we found a lot of problems. For starters, the camera proved to be very slow in almost every respect. It takes nearly 6 seconds to take a picture after turning on the camera. The camera also showed nearly a second of shutter lag when we took a picture without pre-focusing. Write speed didn't prove to be the camera's strong point either. The Shot to Shot time is about 3 seconds for the first 4 shots. After this, you can expect to wait a little over 8 seconds between shots. Also, although we were impressed with the burst ability at 2.0 fps for 4 frames, it takes a painful 23 seconds to clear these pictures.Sometimes a camera's speed can be overlooked if the image quality is superior. This is not the case with the M307. We found images to be pretty noisy, even at ISO 100. In addition, shadow detail is almost non-existent as the camera seems to have a relatively small dynamic range. We also noticed moiré in a number of images that we took. That being said, the actual resolution performance is pretty decent despite the stuck pixels that appeared throughout the resolution chart and other samples. When it comes to video capability, we weren't expecting a lot and it's a good thing that we weren't. The best thing about the video mode is that it shoots at 30 fps. Otherwise, the resolution is small at 320x240, the image is noisy, and the audio quality is horrible.
Through all these negative findings, there is a bright side. Firstly, the Photosmart M307 is priced very reasonably at ~$165. Since point-and-shoot users are unlikely to be printing out 8x10 enlargements, they will probably find the image quality not too bad. In fact, the noise and moiré problems may not even be noticeable after resizing for screen viewing or printing at 4x6. Also, we were impressed with the camera's color reproduction. Even with Auto WB in tungsten light, the colors were very accurate. In addition, other than our temporary shooting problem, the M307 proved to have a respectable battery life. Considering the low price of the Photosmart M307, it is not altogether a bad deal. We just hope that they can do better in the future.
| Pros | Cons |
|
|
Thanks again to Newegg.com for loaning us the HP Photosmart M307 for review.
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!)