HP Photosmart M307 Specifications


  HP Photosmart M307
Release Date August 2004
Price ~$165
Pixel Count 3.2 Million
Camera Type Compact
Highest Resolution 2048x1536
Lower Resolutions 1280x960, 640x480
Sensor Type CCD
Sensor Size 1/2.7"
LCD Screen Size 1.8"
Optical Zoom 3x; 40 - 111mm equivalent
Focus Range 20" - Infinity
Macro 4 - 32"
Digital Zoom 5x
Lens Thread None
Auto Focus Yes
Auto Focus Type TTL
Manual Focus No
Aperture Range W: f2.9 - 4.9; T: f4.9 - 8.0
Shutter Speeds 2 - 1/2000th sec.
ISO Auto, 100, 200, 400
Flash Built-in
Flash Range W: 9.2'; T: 5.5' (ISO 100)
Flash Compensation None
Exposure Compensation +/- 2 stops in 1/2 increments
White Balance Auto, Sun, Shade, Tungsten, Fluorescent
Bracketing None
Metering Center-weighted
Color Filter RGB
Aperture Priority No
Shutter Speed Priority No
Manual Exposure No
Continuous Drive Yes, 2.0 fps for 4 frames (2048x1536)
Self-Timer Yes, 10 sec.
Storage Method SD/MMC, Internal
Storage Included 16MB Internal
Compressed Format JPG
Uncompressed Format None
Quality Settings Best or Default (only for 2048x1536)
Video clips 320x240, 30 fps, w/sound, MPEG1, unlimited duration
Battery Type 2 AA Ni-MH/Alkaline
Charger Included No
PC Interface USB
TV-out Yes, only with M-series Dock
Tripod Mount Yes, plastic
Weight (w/out battery or card) 5.15 oz.
Dimensions 107 x 53 x 36mm

 Included in the Box
  • HP Photosmart M307 Camera
  • 2 AA Alkaline Batteries
  • A/V cable
  • USB camera-to-computer cable
  • USB camera-to-printer cable
  • Wrist strap
  • User's manual
  • Quick Reference
  • Interactive User's Guide CD
  • HP Software CD

Index The Design: HP Photosmart M307
Comments Locked

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!)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now